About Abu Hamza\’s house being done up by the council:
But a spokes-woman for the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “Taxpayers will be incensed to hear that thousands are being spent on this hate preacher’s home while ordinary families struggle for cash.
“It’s bad enough that the British public may be stuck with this venomous character for good.
“But it’s a real slap in the face to have to fund large-scale house renovations for someone whose racist ravings were inciting murder.
“It’s a shame that having already landed the taxpayer with a hefty legal and benefits bill, this man can siphon yet more money from the public purse.”
The latest work on the Hamza home follows council-funded renovations in 2005, which cost a whopping £10,000.
Look, Abu Hookhand ain\’t my favourite living Brit either: but he is a Brit. Maybe he shouldn\’t be but while he is he and his family (who are all Brits by the way, whatever happens to him) get everything that all other Brits get. This is called \”equality before the law\”.
It\’s a British thing.
Oh, one other minor point. The new repairs being done?
extensive works to fix the rotting foundations at the five-bedroom home in West London.
Rotting foundations eh? Why is the council fixing that?
under the local authority’s programme of improvements to its properties
Oh, because it\’s a council house?
Ah, Hooky Abdullah ain\’t getting any money at all. The council is just spending 1.5% of the value of an asset the council owns making sure that said asset doesn\’t fall over into the street.
To be honest (not that I know many taxpayers, taxes being for the little people you understand) I doubt whether this will incense all that many of the Great British Taxpayers nor be regarded by them as a slap in the face.
\”Bleedin\’ Sensible\” would cover it for most I would think.
See also: Mr H’s neighbours, who presumably don’t want their houses to fall into a hole in the street when their foundations are all underpinned and his aren’t.
Actually, keeping his house in perpetual renovation is quite a nasty act of vengeance, carry on, councillor.
Pingback: Abu Hamza’s council house « SadButMadLad's Blog
“Look, Abu Hookhand ain’t my favourite living Brit either: but he is a Brit. ”
He shouldn’t be. A condition of citizenship for foreign nationals should be that they don’t support terrorism.
He has not complied with that and should have lost his citizenship a long time ago.
“A condition of citizenship for foreign nationals”
FAIL. If you’re going to be racist, at least be logically coherent – “A condition of citizenship for people who were born as foreign nationals”. Once someone gets citizenship, they aren’t a foreign national.
Don’t understand the racist jibe there, jb.
Woman shares the bed with me comes from the same area as ole’ hook hand. I’m the one with the blue eyes – but I’m also the one with the suntan. We don’t think we’re different races. Why do you?
You some kind of racist?
If she wanted British citizenship she’d be asking for it on the basis that she wants to be part of the culture. Make a commitment. Bit like marriage really. You don’t have to do it but if you do, it carries certain obligations.
If she didn’t make much of a wife. Screwed the neighbour, threw crockery, it’d be fair to divorce her. Unreasonable behaviour. Why can’t the same be done to people like Hooky?
And yes, if I had a sister it’d be different. However much of a shit she was she’s still my sister. Part of the family. Maybe I’m part of the reason she’s turned out a shit. Broke her toys when she was a kid.
Different set of obligations.
Hmm. I don’t agree with that – maybe that’s my relatives from and time spent in cultures where that just doesn’t make sense.
IMO, someone living in your country on a temporary visa or a free-trade agreement is a guest, and if they abuse your hospitality then they can fuck off.
But someone with a passport has exactly the same rights as someone born there, and only bigots believe otherwise. We can argue about toughening up the rules on who gets a passport, but once you’ve got one, as long as you didn’t lie to get it, you’re a national, and anyone who says you don’t deserve the same rights as a born national is a racist.
Why do you spoil a good point by adding a racist tag?
You got some sort of latent white supremacist hang ups there?
WTF does it matter what colour the hookhanded cnut is? Or are you saying because he’s not a blue eyed Aryan he should get better treatment?