An outrage [Matthew's Journal]

You're viewing

emperor's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

If you follow the UK news, you'll know that Dr Bilal Abdulla was recently found guilty of conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to cause explosions, and sentenced to life in jail, following two failed car-bombings in London, and the driving of a burning car into Glasgow Airport. Fair enough.

What you might have missed is that his co-accused, Dr Mohammed Asha, who was found not guilty, is still in prison, and we're trying to deport him, claiming he's "not conducive to the public good". This is outrageous! He's an innocent man, by all accounts a talented and dedicated doctor. Haven't we fucked his (and his family's) life up enough?

Mood::

embarrassed

←

→

There are 13 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

www.writetothem.com

[link] [reply]

Touche. I'm not sure Jim Cunningham can do anything much in this case, and I try and limit how much green ink I use (I think I've written to him 3 times in the last 2 years, which seems quite a lot). Perhaps...

[link] [parent] [reply]

I don't think it makes much difference at all. None the less, it makes more difference that doing nothing at all; and it is one of the few avenues open to us to make our opinions known.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, I got off my arse and will be sending him a fax once the confirmation email from writetothem comes through. I look forward to a pro-forma reply...

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm not sure what Jim Cunningham's for, exactly. Abi and I went to see him about the national identity register a couple of years ago, and he just wasn't interested. We were in there for about ten minutes, and he spent the first three saying we should have let him know in advance what we wanted to talk about (we did), the next few minutes dismissing our concerns as Tory scaremongering (in a way that implied that we must ourselves therefore be Tories trying to cause trouble) and then the last couple of minutes saying that he wasn't really interested because it was a manifesto commitment and therefore he had a sacred duty to vote for it (although for some reason this principle didn't extend to the previous manifesto commitment to not introduce top-up fees). We left with the distinct impression that we'd been wasting his valuable time.

A few months back, the prospective Tory candidate came knocking on doors, so I brought up the matter of the NIR, and he totally got the point of it all. So I'm currently inclined to vote for him next time round.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I am very busy atm, but I just want to say that I am just as outraged as you.

[link] [reply]

Yes. I was particularly galled that he is being deported because his working visa expired *while he was on remand*.

I wasn't sure writing to my MP was the most appropriate course of action, but presumably the matter can be raised in the Commons. I see from the BBC article that there is at least an appeals body.

[link] [reply]

They tried that first, but his solicitors sorted the paperwork, according to the Beeb article I linked above; it was only after that that they declared him unconducive to public good. So his solicitor says, anyhow.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Haven't we fucked his (and his family's) life up enough? Yes, though I'd say that "us" is not quite right. It is them where them is a state that is not currently doing things the way that many of us would wish.

I'll try to find time to do the write-to-them thing later.

[link] [reply]

Acquitted is not the same as innocent, and neither you nor I know what information exists that couldn't be produced in court.

S.

[link] [reply]

No, it's not. However, for the government to treat it as if it isn't is to show utter contempt for the judicial system. And as for evidence that 'couldn't be produced in court', you could say that about anything, if it was worthwhile evidence then it should have presented, if it isn't then it is not a sensible grounds for deporting him either.

[link] [parent] [reply]

If there was 'evdence that couldn't be produiced' presumably this would be stuff that would give something away (an informant, ro some other intelligence) but surely the system works so that this stuff is referred to even if specifics are 'blacked-out'.

[link] [parent] [reply]

No one seems to have created a petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ yet ... nor yet a group on facebook.

Probably rejected from number10 because "We don't accept petitions on individual legal cases such as deportations because we can never ascertain whether the individual involved has given permission for their details to be made publicly known. We advise petitioners to take their concerns on such matters directly to the Home Office."

Goodness, perhaps someone will find out about his deportation from the website! That should never happen!

Oddly enough those same personal details _are_ put up on the 'rejected petitions' part of the website!

[link] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Matthew's Journal

An outrage

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

October