Isle of the Dead, cont.
First, the British couldn’t extradite al Qaeda honcho Abu Qatada to Jordan, because Jordan might mistreat him or kill him.
Then, the British couldn’t hold Abu Qatada in custody, but had to release him back into society, though it’s not clear why they couldn’t have tried him on numerous charges of calling for terrorism and murder.
And now comes the final step, as reported in the Daily Express. The British have installed Abu Qatada in a four-bedroom home where he lives with his wife and five children.
But that wasn’t the final step. The Qatada’s house is located in a wealthy neighborhood and the rent on it is 576 pounds per week, which is paid for by the British government, out of “housing benefits.”
According to a currency converter I found on the Web, that’s $1,133 per week, or close to $5,000.00 per month.
Can British readers tell me why the British taxpayer is paying Qatada’s rent? And rent many times more than what the average person pays?
What I mean is, can they give me some reason for this other than, “The British seek to make themselves the most contemptible people who have ever lived on this earth, so that when Britain is finally extinguished, no one will care.”
Phillip M. writes from Britain:
“Can British readers tell me why the British taxpayer is paying Qatada’s rent? And rent many times more than what the average person pays? “LA replies:
And this benefit just runs without any time limit, without any expecation of its ever ending.Phillip replied:
I doubt there are many 4 bedroom houses in London for rent that you could get for less than that amount. You seen house prices in London? It’s mental. 2,500 pounds per month isn’t excessive. A cynic might say that the government encourages mass immigration whilst not building any more houses in order to keep the house prices high, so people feel wealthy and borrow credit on the strength of the inflated value of their house. Housing benefit is also assessed on need, so an immigrant will always be greater priority than a Brit because they will be deemed to have no support networks to turn to. (Which is ironic when I think about it, what with them always talking about the “Muslim community.” Maybe they should pay for their own welfare state.)Charles T. writes:
The secular religion of our modern age requires that we love our enemies and hate our allies, friends, and yes even our own country for the sake and welfare of those who hate us. The British government is applying this principle perfectly … to the ruination of their own country. This is not Christian practice, but some damn fool will say that it is.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 25, 2008 07:48 PM | Send