How much NHS care (or housing, or child protection) has this man cost us already?

Mr. Qatada is very expensive , five million a year, and that's just the start.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9678143/Abu-Qatada-demands-to-be-relocated-after-year-in-400000-home.html

His human rights do include freedom from people hanging around near his house, looking in the windows and so on, so he and his family will now be relocated to a house somewhere more secluded. A mansion in leafy suburbs surrounded by a wall with electronic gates might suit.

Mr. Quatada also has the human right to wander freely during the day, but again, with media intrusion, his human rights will be at risk of people looking at him, so it only seems reasonable to provide a car with armoured and heavily tinted windows, big enough for family outings. Actually, a car that belonged to the Queen may be coming up for sale soon, that might do nicely. Now, on to the human rights regarding plasma televisions.

Of course all of this is "reported" costs, and security measures, how much of it is true, none of us on here KNOW for a fact.

Shame on the police, security forces etc for not putting up the evidence and prosecuting him. Maybe there is no wrong doing on his part, apart from saying the kind of hateful thing religious extremists often do.

These politicians of all sides keep saying how dangerous this guy is, but offer no proof. And the fact that the very peaceful lovely nation of Jordan say he is a criminal, of course we have to believe. And the USA and UN say he is dangerous, so he must be, yet still no evidence to lock him up and charge him.

It was disgusting what happened to the man for expressing an opinion. Even gay rights activists including Peter Tatchell said it was wrong what happened to him, but it was his employer who took action against him not the council.

If there had been anything on Qataba then he would have been charged and prosecuted, but there is nothing it seams he has done that is against the law. All what is against him is things he is alleged to have said, none of which the authorities have deemed to be against the law.

Easy mistake to make.

I disagree with what he said, but along with Peter Tatchall support his right to say what he said, especially when he said what he said in a calm, decent way.
It poses the question about what can one say on your own facebook etc page. It wouls have been one his own "friends" who reported him to his employers, who had no right to do what they did. IF he had said what he said in a professional capacity then fair enough take action against him, but not when he says such things in a private, NON public way.