According to David Icke and his fellow travellers
, even though the Grand Conspiracy could assassinate a serving US President, and plot and carry out 9/11
, it can't do anything about Abū Qatāda
. At least that appears to be their view, although they haven't stated it quite so candidly. Abū Qatāda was back in court last December and January; the judgment can be found here on the BAILII website
together with some background information on his case.
More recently, following a decision of a domestic court, he has been released on bail
, not for the first time, and is now being both housed and monitored at great public expense. The state monitoring him is even more annoying than its providing him with his livelihood because while the police and others are scrutinising his every act in case he spits on the sidewalk, real crimes are going unsolved or even uninvestigated. Is there anything that can be done until one way or another we can finally be rid of this man?
We can't deport him in case when he is returned to the Middle East the poor dear is tortured, you've heard of the Middle East - it's that place innocent
people are being maimed and murdered left, right and centre, but there is surely no reason we can't deport his wife and family. If nothing else, that would show him just how unwelcome he and his ilk are, and may discourage other so-called asylum seekers from seeking refuge here, especially when they are wanted by their own governments for serious crimes.
In the meantime, there is absolutely no reason for him to be housed purely for his own convenience. Britain is not only an island nation but a nation of islands, hundreds of them, some, especially those off the coast of Scotland, have hardly any inhabitants, or even none at all, though it would probably not be politic to dump even Abū Qatāda on Gruinard
There is though no reason why he and other undesirables should not be sent into some sort of exile. As he isn't permitted to use the Internet, he could manage quite well on a remote croft with a single telephone box, one that could not receive incoming calls, and would of course be monitored.
We could also house undesirables and anti-socials both foreign and domestic in such remote places. Serious consideration should be given to this for paedophiles and other sex offenders, and those persistent offenders, social inadequates, undesirables and generally unemployables
who inhabit sink estates, and who are a major source of crime and misery in our inner cities.
Those who were capable of some sort of gainful employment could work on-line or even be employed by the government editing websites, proof-reading and such. Those who couldn't, could still be paid a decent wage, the only objection to this being the pseudo-moral one identified by Major Douglas
. In the long run it would pay to domicile these anti-socials and undesirables so; left to their own devices, most of them end up in the long downward spiral of crime/prison/anti-social behaviour/crime/more prison/homelessness/more crime...and so on. Certainly they make work for policemen, social workers and prison officers, but they make everyone else's lives miserable, including their own.
It would be for the government to decide who would be eligible for this sort of internal exile, which could be based on both individual and communal living, but apart from die-hard trouble makers, and radicals like Abū Qatāda, there would probably be no shortage of volunteers.