indeed, he is getting the same treatment as other citizens and its not good enough

i am not from the us by the way so i am the wrong guy to talk to about that
but yes, their housing problem is far worse



maybe that information is missing, but that veteran didnt seem to get bnb or a hostel? if that is the case you just admitted that this terrorist got special treatment compared to an actual citizen
your argument is true for the standard british criminal, but not for this one
first, a terrorist and murderer should never be allowed to leave prison again and when you do, deport him so the iranians can get justice
what happens to him is own problem



it is, this man is a ticking time bomb in all imaginable ways and free to engage in any kind of activity to support his fellow islamist friends



who knows what they offered him, but we cant know for sure
but its good input

what i mentioned above though still counts

This post was edited by ampoo on Jan 25 2018 05:15am

See previous post.



He's been offered accommodation and turned it down.

If we don't house criminals in BnBs and Hostels how can we keep track of them? They need to have a residence where they can be monitored on parole.

You're equating two very different ideologies. This chap is not an 'Islamist'. He is an Arab Nationalist - if he even holds those views anymore after 28 years of incarceration.

of course they do not live in the same area and were not competing for the same council house at the same time. and it is of course not a good idea to let people rot on the streets, of course this will increase the risk of turning criminal.

BUT: this risk of turning or returning to criminal activities does not only affect the ex-cons, it also applies to law-abiding citizens who lost their home. as you yourself just confirmed, homelessness is an issue in the UK, there is practically no area in the country with ready-to-go council houses, there is a waiting list in practically every area. I simply dont see a reason why an ex-con, and particularly one who was convicted for a crime as serious as terrorism, should take precedence over law-abiding citizens in need of council houses. if you have to turn down one of them - as is the case in most regions -, if you have to expose one of them to the risks associated with homelessness, it should be the terrorist, not the innocent citizen.

hence, irrespective of what happened with the SAS guy, the iranian ex-terrorist should be at the very bottom of the waiting list for council homes.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 25 2018 05:24am

as i stated before, there is no need to track criminals who are foreigners, because they should not be in the country under any circumstance (i know "human rights" bla bla, what about the human rights of citizens?)
on the rest i agreed with you

arab nationalists are always islamists, its a central part of their agenda

You clearly didn't even read what you quoted. The Iranian didn't take precedence. He was housed before the ex-army guy became homeless. This isn't a case of an ex sas dude being turned down in favour of an ex-convict.



Not sure if he even is a 'foreigner' but it's irrelevant. Once you convict and imprison someone for 28 years you have a measure of responsibility for them after their release. As I stated before - we don't execute people in the UK and sending him to Iran would be tantamount to execution. Also he has paid for his crimes under UK law. We have no right to punish him further and a moral obligation toward his protection and wellbeing as he is now a resident.

If he was to be deported then that should have happened at the time. As we have tried, convicted and punished him for his crimes the time for that debate is long passed. No doubt he will remain a person of interest until intelligence services are satisfied he poses no threat but meanwhile he deserves the same opportunity for rehabilitation and peace that any hostage-taker and murderer gets once their sentence is served.

If you think there should be harsher punishments for these crimes then that's a debate I think you could have a valid argument for but even should you win it we cannot, legally or morally, apply further punishment to this particular man retroactively. He has been punished for his crimes and until there is any indication he has or might commit any further criminal acts his case should be closed.

Does he want to be homeless?

I bet services are there. You can't force people to do things.

Things often aren't as they appear.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jan 25 2018 06:21am

I doubt he wants to be. But he is being incredibly shit about rectifying it.
If you don't give the council what they need they can't process your claim. Pretty simple shit. Even still they managed to find offers for accommodation for him which he then turned down.
He may be a veteran but that doesn't mean he's entitled to fuck the services around by not handing in the relevant information.
As I said before - he's getting far more leniency and assistance than I, as a homeless child, got. If it wasn't for the fact he is a veteran with a national story he would have been told he needs to hand in all the relevant documents and until he gets off his arse and sorts that out he can get fucked.

Honestly man. Piers Morgan is such a dickhead.

are you f***ing kidding me?

I clearly stated that it's obvious that the sas guy and the iranian terrorist did not apply for the same council house. then I make a case that there will nonetheless always be other citizens who are not ex-convicts that will apply for council houses in the area where the terrorist is housed. and that, in my humble opinion, terrorist scum should not occupy spots that could instead go to law-abiding citizens who need them just as much.

and after neither reading nor comprehending what I wrote, you answer me with "you clearly didnt even read" and falsely pretend like I was alluding to the already debunked "terrorist and SAS guy competing for the same council house"-story.

again, are you kidding me?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 25 2018 06:43am

So, as there will always be 'law-abiding citizens' in need of housing, when do you recommend we house the criminals? Because it seems to me you are saying that we should just .

How about presenting a coherent argument instead of constantly contradicting yourself? Then there wouldn't be any confusion as to what the fuck you're going on about.

This post was edited by Scaly on Jan 25 2018 06:56am

This isn't russophobic or anything