Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:20 am  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213740

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213740

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:28 am  

If they'd not tried to play footloose with the law in the first place, they could have saved a great deal of that money.

But ultimately, the law is the winner here, and I think that's actually quite reassuring.

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:34 am  

I am quite proud sometimes when an obvious scumbag is protected with the full weight of the law to show everyone that we have the right to fair and just legal representation..but then i see us deport people to America who have never even set foot on American soil and the closest they've ever gotten to USA is through a .com site or a McDonalds cheeseburger.

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:43 am  

£1.7m is a lot of money to deport one person, but in terms of terrorism it is nothing.

I don't even think the murder of Lee Rigby is even worthy of being called a terrorist attack, but I think the massive police operation straight after his death could have easily cost more than £1.7m. I hate to think how much the trial of the two scumbags will cost.

And it's not like the Govt set out to spend so much money. They had to spend that money because of the legal difficulties in shipping him out. If the govt didn't spend that money then he'd still be here.

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:05 am  

Good riddance to him and I am eager to hear more about Cameron's proposals to remove these sorts more quickly in the future.

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:13 am  

Due process MUST be followed.
Otherwise we are as bad as the terrorists and the terrorists have succeeded in undermining our rule of law.

Cameron wants to adjust our relationship with ECHR .... how exactly? To abide by verdicts we like and ignore those we don't?

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:40 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

Good riddance to him and I am eager to hear more about Cameron's proposals to remove these sorts more quickly in the future.

Just as eager as we are to read your answers to direct questions, I'm sure.

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:23 am  

Mintball wrote:

If they'd not tried to play footloose with the law in the first place, they could have saved a great deal of that money.

But ultimately, the law is the winner here, and I think that's actually quite reassuring.

Spot on. Although Mother Theresa is being feted as some sort of Joan of Arc, lets not forget the initial incompetency has a lot more to do with the final cost of this episode.

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:06 pm  

Mintball wrote:

If they'd not tried to play footloose with the law in the first place, they could have saved a great deal of that money.

But ultimately, the law is the winner here, and I think that's actually quite reassuring.

Unfortunately going "Kevin Bacon" over immigration has long been a failing of Home Secretaries, regardless of their political hue.

Re: Finally, but was it worth the cost? : Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:23 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Good riddance to him and I am eager to hear more about Cameron's proposals to remove these sorts more quickly in the future.

Brown people? People not convicted of any crime in this country? People convicted of crimes in a foreign country in absentia using evidence obtained by torture? People The Sun told you were bad? Im eager to hear more about how we define 'these sorts'.