Arab immigration officer sacked from Gatwick job after colleagues claimed he looked at Al Jazeera website too much
For national security this bloke was sacked because he looked at Al Jazeera, I know a lot of people that look at Al Jazeera, including myself.
So Mr W and his legal team are not able to attend his own Tribunal because it will risk national security, but how is he suppose to defend himself?
‘Instead of his chosen lawyer, he is represented by a special advocate –appointed by the Attorney-General – who has clearance to see the secret material but is forbidden from discussing the evidence with Mr W’. How is Mr W suppose to defend himself, if nothing can be discussed? The advocate can never represent him without answers to the questions that will be asked and I would guess the advocate can not ask certain questions because it would give clues to the information that will risk national security. The advocate was appointed not through Mr W‘s choice, he was not allowed his chosen lawyer because of national security, surely they could get the lawyer to sign the Official Secrets Act. I thought British Law was suppose to be fair and just and innocent until proven guilty, but you hear time and time again, this is not true..
Witnesses are always cross-examined and he has not been, but the department witnesses could not answer questions put to them, surely in most cases the whole thing would be in question if the department could not answer some questions.
‘identified as an associate of a network of suspected Islamist extremists who were assessed to be supporting the insurgency in Iraq’. This statement would need some really good evidence to prove this but we also do know the government is good at not having good evidence to prove such statements, shame he cant defend himself against these allegations.
He has family in Yemen and visited them, he claims he meet several people, every day we all meet new people, should we start to question who these people are, just in case they are connected to crime in some way?
‘Mr W told the tribunal last week that police had never interviewed him nor had security services asked him to assist any investigations.’ So if the police and security services have not interviewed him, how much of a security risk is Mr W, I doubt he is a risk to security, otherwise both would have interviewed him and detained him.
Is this a case of the people he was working with being over sensitive to him being an Arab and looking at Al Jazeera. He was more and likely looking at Al Jazeera to keep updated on news where some of his family are in Yemen. I wonder what these workers would do, if a white British person was looking Al Jazeera, would they do the same as they did to Mr W, I doubt it very much.
The media have done a grand job of mass hysteria with Muslims and connecting them to terrorism, a lot of white British have sadly fallen for this, since 9/11. Yes we are told that the terrorist were Muslim on 9/11, but what 100% proof do we actually have that it was Muslims on those planes, we don’t. I will not get into the whole 9/11 debate and theories surrounding it as that is a whole different subject on its own.
So in short, if you go onto Al Jazeera news website, chances are you might be a terrorist or supporting them, even worse if you are a Muslim, Al Jazeera is a good news website and bearing in mind the Middle East is a troubled area, if you had family in a Middle Eastern country, wouldn’t you want to keep updated on the news, yes you would, no difference to UK residents checking the UK news.