badgerx16

So explain the bombing of the King David Hotel.

Sort of reverse TARDIS then ?

Which one ? The Jewish incarnation, the Christian one ( be that Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox ), or the Islamic ?

How many tanks do they need to crush a couple of hundred houses ?

I thought this thread was going to be about this lot :

Or as happened after WW2 - one man's Palestine is another man's Israel.

Why should the threat of a club going into liquidation and having to be expunged from the league cause the FL a problem ? They've done it before.

In terms of UK Law a lot of it only existed in Common Law rather than primary legislation. The 1950 European Convention enabled people to go to Strasbourg to appeal against judgements in the UK, and quite often get them overturned as the European Court was viewed as being the higher authority. The HRAct put in place the framework to enable UK courts to become the principal, and also put the 'Rights' into primary statute. http://www.lawobserver.co.uk/human_rights_2_32.html

Not at all, all we need is legislation that permits us to do it. Assuming, that is, that you wish to continue to operate under British Law ? The Legal Eagles get rich interpreting the rules that Parliament lays down - if there is a loophole it is Parliament's job to close it.

If Teresa May hadn't miscalculated the date of the expiry of his European appeal period in April, he'd have been long gone.

Given the FL's quite clear and public statement regarding the points penalty, what would the other 23 clubs say if they did back down ? ( And as for the query about prospective buyers being put off by the deduction, it's the same condition as when Marcus took over at St Mary's ).

In which case it's crystal clear : " Therefore, as a condition of membership, any new company established to apply for ownership of Portsmouth Football Club's share in The Football League will be required to: 1. Accept a deduction of 10 points in the 2012/13 season;"

Why elect somebody to commission crime ? Surely we should be electing somebody to prevent it ?

If the court accepts they are out of administration, yes. ( but the FL have always twisted their own rules where the skates are concerned ).

About as much as the Qatada case has to do with the EU.

Qatada hasn't been deported because the Home Office have messed up. This is the judgement of a British court.

You are aware that we don't have an empire any more ? Isolationism won't work. This is from a Guardian article : "However, the European convention on human rights is part of our DNA. It is not "someone else's law". It was never imposed on Britain. The UK proposed the creation of the convention at the end of the second world war – largely at the suggestion of Winston Churchill. It was designed to ensure that the atrocities and mass murder committed by totalitarian states before and during the war would never be repeated. The rights contained in the convention can be traced back to Magna Carta and to other laws long established in the UK. Indeed, it has well been said that the convention marked – and continues to mark – "a vital codification of the common law, not its repudiation"." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/nov/21/convention-human-rights-britain-coalition

This is nothing to do with the European Union FFS- it is the European Convention on Human Rights that forms the basis of the Human Rights Act. If you want a debate at least argue over the correct bit of paper.

But there is a difference, the soldier was tried at a military trubunal. I'm not sure about the admissibility of evidence of mental breakdown, etc, in a Court Martial, but I hope that had this been before a civilian judge his mitigating circumstances would have had much more sway.

From the report that Viking has quoted it would appear that this case, on the face of it a massive miscarriage of justice, was tried by the military rather than the civilian process.

How old were Adam and Morgan when they broke into the first team ? How old were Wayne Bridge and Gareth Bale ? How many others have we blooded over the years ?

You do realise that the HRAct was put in place to enable British judges to make rulings in British cases - repeal it and these cases will all simply be referred up to Strasbourg, as we will still be bound by the 1950 European Convention, ( which by the way was Winston Churchill's idea ). I fail to see why the Qatada case is a misuse of the Act - his lawyers have successfully argued to a British judge that the Home Secretary has failed to provide assurance that evidence obtained from torture will not be used. This is the only point on which the appeal was upheld, others were dismissed. Teresa May and her legal advisors are to blame, as were all previous Home Secretaries involved in this case; the man is an II who used a forged passport to gain entry to the country, he should have been removed years ago, but the authorities have time and again proved to be incompetent.

I respectfully refer my Learned Friend to post #7; ".....I think he should have gone years ago....." I have no opinion on the charges he faces, and it is up to the Jordanian's to make their own judgement in accordance with their own legal system. However, I also expect the Home Secretary and her legal advisers to be sufficiently competent that they can get what needs to be done signed off. It is an absolute given that you are 'innocent until proven guilty', and that is why the bint with the scales, who stands on top of the Old Bailey, is wearing a blindfold. On this basis Qatada, Hamsa, and even Bin Laden should he have been taken alive, are entitled to the same interpretation of the Law as you or I. If you believe that the HRAct is flawed then it is up to the politicians to change it, the Judges work strictly to the words placed before them.

In what way has the HRAct been 'misused' or 'misinterpreted' ? Are you a better legal expert than the Special Immigration Appeals Court ? The Court's judgement says quite clearly that the Home Secretary has failed to conclusively demonstrate that 'unreliable' evidence will not be used in any trial Qatada would be subject to in Jordan. This 'evidence' was allegedly obtained by torture when 2 supposed accomplices were interrogated about 10 years ago. The 'minor' point referred to earlier is a clarification in the Jordanian Legal Code that this evidence cannot be so used. The judgement can found here http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/Othman_substantive_judgment.pdf