badgerx16

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

Rubbish. The sticking point with Quatada is a 'minor', ( to quote a lawyer on R4 this morning ), clause in the Jordanian Legal Code that relates to the admissibility of evidence, possibly obtained by torture, provided by his co-accused. I'm fairly certain that the Norwegians don't use torture on suspects or witnesses.

Why not blame the judges who actually made the decision, or the Jordanians for allegedly using evidence obtained by torture ? Or for that matter, why not blame the Home Secretary and Minister for Justice who describe Quatada as a 'terrorist' and a 'threat to UK security' but can't find anything to charge him with. Quatada is, perhaps unfortunately, entitled under the law to the same rights and protections as you or I - the main issue, IMO, is how he got into the country in the first place - using a forged passport and then claiming asylum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgzs6pT26KI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPlvU1hKb0E&feature=related

You are correct, ( go up 3 posts to #77228 ), however I was being slightly facetious and alluding to their potential to extend their lead in the 'how many admins has your club had ?' stakes. Might be a bit cruel in only giving the PST that long though.

That's the problem with 'universal' rights, you can't pick and choose who they apply to. ( And before TDD lumps me in with the 'get along gang' I think he should have gone years ago, but as it stands the legal eagles on both sides are anticpating another 18 months of fees as the next loops around the appeal circuit take place ).

They can go back to court after the 12 months to ask for an extension.

To be accurate, they cannot start next season in the same admin.

It seems his contract had the provision for 6 months pay in lieu of notice if he resigned, and 12 months if he was sacked. Apparently Chris Patten had to make an informed decision as to which clause applied in this case, and settled for the latter to avoid any legal / tribunal complications.

Is that the polite way of saying "F()ck off, you've been taking the p!ss far too long" ?

I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned before on this thread

No chance, the Gazette is a typical local agenda driven rag, but even they have some integrity.

The 2 key milestones in the administration are : (1) They will have to go back to court in February for permission to extend the process, if denied they have to liquidate, and (2) they cannot start next season in the same administration, the Football League will expel them. Other than that I assume if they exit admin after the end of this season they would start the next one with -10, the wording of the FL clause is that it is applied at the point they exit the administration.

We were generally better at the back, ( except ofor ur obligatory 'suicide' moment ), and the midfield were much more in control with Cork replacing Davis. However, Adam is getting a reputation as a 'Suarez', and Rickie seems to lack confidence - regardless of letting in the goal we really should have been scoring 2 or 3 against that team, and the way we played in the first few games I think we would have. We seemed to completely bottle things when we took the lead. Rather than close the game out by pushing for #2 we sat back and invited them on. I also thought Puncheon had one of his better games for us.

Having watched the Newsnight report, I'm reasonably sure that it didn't give any names, so why is it being castigated now ? They carried allegations about a 'senior political figure', and various other unnamed individuals, but as far as I can see, the actual names came from elsewhere. One thing I seem to remember that the report did say, is that the findings of the, allegedly severely constrained, inquiry into what happened in Wrexham was pulped without it being seen by anybody outside the inquiry board.

No tatoos or piercings, and the only scars I have are the result of accident, incident, or surgery.

Appy was interviewed on Sunday, nothing 'apparently' about it.

Was shown this advert a few minutes ago

Michael Appleton and Karl Oyston didn't get off to the best of starts :

Ince to ManUre in January is the rumour

Same as Hollowhead, but I suspect a lot cheaper. Anyway, if I spot him at work tomorrow, what do I say to him ?