Voting and a Legal Travesty

With electioneering already under way, I was asked yesterday whether one should vote for the individual or the party and it was not an easy one to answer.

I have nearly always voted Conservative, but a few years ago when based in Stroud, I voted for David Drew of Labour. Mr Drew and I did not agree on much, particularly when it came to matters African, but he was an excellent constituency MP who worked hard for the people of Stroud.

The incumbent Conservative on the other hand was an out of touch idiot who seemed far too full of his own importance. So despite being chastised by those closest to me, I put my X beside David Drew’s name. Fortunately perhaps my little vote did not bring Labour into power, but in the forthcoming December election, I will be hard pressed to choose a destination for my vote.

The Brexit Party deserve better than to be marginalised. After all, it’s thanks to them that the inept Mother Maybe was thrown out and Bunter J has managed to secure a Brexit deal, however imperfect that deal is.

Why should the Tories, who contrived to botch Brexit until Johnson took over, benefit from the Faragists’ hard work? There are some fine people in the Brexit Party and if I thought they could form a workable government, I’d have no hesitation voting for the them. But regretfully I can’t see that happening.

If any kind of Brexit is to become a reality, Bunter J is the only real hope. Nigel Farage is wisely offering the Tories an olive branch at the moment, so let’s just pray they are bright enough to take Donald Trump’s advice.

The alternative, a Jeremy Corbyn/John McDonnel government, is too horrible to contemplate. If they win, the strike-torn, bankrupt days of the mid seventies will start to look like a brand new bright tomorrow. I know I will offend my Grandson by saying this, but even if I was an avid Labour supporter, I don’t think I could find it in my heart to vote for a party, led by this total waste of oxygen and the awful men and women immediately around him.

We are continually being told how this country is at risk from terrorism. Boarding an aircraft has become an exercise in frustration as luggage and bodies are searched by lowly security people who have little official standing and we are told that it is all for our own good.

How then is it that a foreign criminal convicted of a terrorism offence in Britain has used refugee laws to overturn the Government’s bid to deport him? The Kenyan man is now free to apply to permanently stay in Britain despite admitting to having ‘an extremist mindset,’ according to court papers.

In one of the first cases of its kind, he successfully argued that his rights as a refugee outweighed the risk, he poses to the UK in a judgment that has just been made public.

The man, who ridiculously, can only be identified by the initials NF, claimed he would be subject to ‘ill treatment’ if sent to Kenya. He deserves ill treatment damn it! He was caught at Heathrow in 2011 returning from East Africa with a huge haul of terrorist material stored on an iPod. The aforesaid court papers reveal that this included audio files said to be made by Al Qaeda and images of armed persons with flags associated with Al Shabaab, a linked terror group. 

Detectives later found more materials at his home. In 2013, NF was given a nine-month jail sentence for ‘possessing information useful to terrorism’. This consisted of a document entitled Thirty-nine Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad, which the trial judge described as a ‘terrorists’ manual.’ 

The Home Secretary at the time then tried to deport NF and his wife KKA, who both lodged asylum claims to stay in Britain. Home Office officials argued the couple were not entitled to humanitarian protection under the Refugee Convention because of the risk NF posed to the public.

But despite hearing that NF accepted he had an ‘extremist mindset,’ in 2016 immigration judges upheld an appeal by the Kenyan nationals. This of course meant that NF and KKA were allowed to remain in Britain and pursue an asylum claim.

The Home Secretary attempted to overturn that decision but a newly published judgment reveals that the government has lost. Upper Tribunal vice-president Mark Ockelton and judge Mark O’Connor said the threshold for ‘threatening international peace and security’ had not been crossed.

What then does cross this ridiculous ‘threshold?’ If the man is not an acrive terrorist, he certainly wants to be and that should not be allowed.

David Davies, the MP for Monmouth, said: ‘This goes to show how totally out of touch our courts have become… It’s absolutely insane that judges and the courts are allowing this to happen.’

Of course it is insane Mr Davies, but it is symptomatic of what is happening in modern Britain.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘We do not routinely comment on individual cases’ and would not discuss the status of NF and KKA’s asylum claims.

I have no idea why the couple said they would be at risk in Kenya, but Amnesty International and the UN have apparently shared concern about the detention of suspected terrorists there.

But Kenya is their homeland; Britain is not; why should they be allowed to pursue their nefarious designs here as they will almost certainly do? I know they have their ‘human ruddy rights’ but so do the rest of us. Why should ordinary people be put at risk for the sake of one homicidal fanatic from another country?

None of it makes sense damnit!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s