---

@aps1080 wrote:

The no was in relation to the death threats. You don't warn people before you kill them, it's just people venting off.

Re post above, because that is what you lot do, tie up courts with appeal after appeal. It took the UK govt something like 9 damn years to get rid of one bloke because of the never ending appeals - which the EU has a lot to answer for.

---

Aps, if  you read through the posts I have made on this and other threads, you will realise that I don't indulge in empty rhetoric, be it fluffie huggie or jingoistic. I deal in specifics, and the specifics of this argument have nothing to do with who may or may not have been responsible for what may or may not have happened in an English courtroom.

@Channy’s mum wrote: Bail is probably a hard one because of innocent until proven guilty, however after the letters his baggies should have been packed for him and a one way ticket supplied.

Aps 1080 wrote: We all wish that but the huggie fluffies do gooder lefties wouldn't allow it.

He has his "human rights: you know, bugger everyone he offends or hurts as long as "his" "human rights" are looked after.

Now as far as I can see there are only two possible scenarios implied in your post:

1) An attempt was made to deport him but it was thwarted by fluffie huggie do-gooder lefties or

2) If an attempt had been made,  it is a foregone conclusion that it would have failed for the same reason.

Scenario 1) is demonstrably false. There was no attempt to deport him. the only attempt ever made to get him out of the country was an extradition request by the Iranian Government, which failed on legal grounds because Australia does not have an extradition agreement with Iran.

Scenario 2) is equally untrue as there is no such thing as a foregone conclusion on matters which are before a cour - that is why we have a legal systemt.

If you want to argue the (irrelevant) English case then you might like to consider that, whatever the feeling of the fluffie huggie brigad,e the case was argued , by lawyers, in a courtroom and decided on points of law.

You may of course believe that a Muslim charged with a serious offence should not be entitled to legal representation but unless or until the law - both here and in England - is changed to reflect your wishes, it is pointless to blame 'do gooders' for legal arguments put forward  by lawyers to defend their clients.