Latest terrorist attack.

[Deleted member 28]

What now seems to be emerging is the all too common pattern of a young man with disturbed mental health.

There may have been (arguably should have been) a justified grievance over how long it took to process his Asylum claim.

Don't tell me, it's the Government's fault he's done it?
What planet do you lot live on?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Don't tell me, it's the Government's fault he's done it?
What planet do you lot live on?

I'm saying two things:

1. Mental Health issues and fact they're not dealt with is a thread running through a number of domestic terror cases and
2. The Asylum system is riven with faults - lets see what emerges with this fellow's case...

 

[Deleted member 49]

Hitchens used to go on (still does?) about the connection between drugs - either medication of illegal - and those who commit murderous terrorist offences. This has been in the background of virtually every such offence for decades, but there is a marked reluctance to investigate it.

Hitchens might be more tolerable if he decided to roll a joint for himself...Cannabis isn't the cause,I'd say it's more likely that the prejudices of the Mail stoking division and hatred have led to far more violence than smoking a joint.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I bet you'd be welcome if ever you needed defending in any way.

You one of those phone mast protesters that enjoy the benefits of mobile phone?

You are right, but I'm not sure they were defending me in the middle East

I'm protected from the phone masts by my tinfoil hat.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Hitchens might be more tolerable if he decided to roll a joint for himself...Cannabis isn't the cause,I'd say it's more likely that the prejudices of the Mail stoking division and hatred have led to far more violence than smoking a joint.

The trouble is that there is some evidence linking cannabis use to mental/psychiatric disorders, depending on the usage pattern and strength and previous mental history of the user.
That is not to say the Mail doesn't continually stoke division, but the whole issue of the benign nature of cannabis is not as open and shut a case as those who have occasionally, or even frequently, smoked a joint and suffered no problems, or even those who are totally against all drug use, like to pretend.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I thought that is what I said, in different words?

Perhaps, it is necessary to qualify "we", I rather things it is the Americans who have most of the toys.

It was those different words " sort of won" I disagreed with, but we are probably in agreement on the principle.

 

[BoldonLad]

Phew....that was a long winded way of saying we should of never been there.

Yes, indeed... but... as the saying goes, "we are were we are", unless someone invents time travel, all we can do is go forward from now.

 

[fozy tornip]

Don't tell me, it's the Government's fault he's done it?
What planet do you lot live on?

Thatcher's dabs are all over it.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Thatcher's dabs are all over it.

Now that IS desperate.

 

[Lilliburlero]

Can't you get your squaddie mates to sort them out?

No, this looks like a job for bicycle repair man.

 

[Rusty Nails]

No, this looks like a job for bicycle repair man.

 

[Pale Rider]

The Asylum system is riven with faults - lets see what emerges with this fellow's case...

It has already emerged his application was turned down in 2015, yet six years later he's still here.

Appeals lasting years make a joke of the process.

Has he made any effort to support himself in that time?

I honestly don't know, but 'work' is usually a dirty word in these cases.

Thus he's been refused permission to remain, but we've still paid to keep him warm and fed for years.

No wonder all those punters are queuing up to cross the channel.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It has already emerged his application was turned down in 2015, yet six years later he's still here.

Appeals lasting years make a joke of the process.

Has he made any effort to support himself in that time?

So what exactly is the history both pre and post 2015?

Was that the date the Home Office declined his application?

HO decisions have to be subject to a proper appeal to an independent body, at present the First-tier Tribunal. That much is surely indisputable.

We need to understand what happened next. Were the Home Office on their toes at any Tribunal together with a well trained Presenting Officer who was on top of the facts? Or did they just submit the same old cut/paste submission they pull off the shelf for everybody from the bomber's home country and send a clerk pulled from a staffing agency?

Unfortunately the Home Secretary, who should be showing more decorum, is milking it for her own political ends.

What, bearing in mind the restrictions on him as an Asylum Seeker could he have done to support himself?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It has already emerged his application was turned down in 2015, yet six years later he's still here.

Appeals lasting years make a joke of the process.

Has he made any effort to support himself in that time?

I honestly don't know, but 'work' is usually a dirty word in these cases.

Thus he's been refused permission to remain, but we've still paid to keep him warm and fed for years.

It’s unlikely we paid to keep him ‘warm and fed’ since, as the article explains,
“Typically, when someone loses an asylum claim and exhausts their rights to appeal, the Home Office withdraws their financial support and housing and warns them they will be removed from the UK.”

Do you know that he was still getting his £35 a week allowance?

And as the article further explains,
“It is not clear if the Home Office ever told Al Swealmeen he would be removed from the country or whether it took any steps to do so.”

So it’s possible there was a failure on the part of the Home Office that allowed him to remain as long as he did.

 

[Bromptonaut]

So it’s possible there was a failure on the part of the Home Office that allowed him to remain as long as he did.

My money is on that being the case.