Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 how embarrassing that we can't kick out a convicted terrorist from our own country just embarrassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 We can, we just have to ignore the ECHR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mack rill Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 how embarrassing that we can't kick out a convicted terrorist from our own country just embarrassing Shooosh TDD your gonna upset the Dooooooogooders on ear, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 how embarrassing that we can't kick out a convicted terrorist from our own country just embarrassing Erm - convicted of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latter day saint Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 (edited) We can, we just have to ignore the ECHR. other countries would but i'd be amazed if we did Edited 19 April, 2012 by latter day saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 18 Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Erm - convicted of what? Ok maybe not convicted but wanted by his own country to face trial for terroist offences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 France and Italy have ignored the european court and taken a measly fine. I don't think we should do the same because we are British. We should instead pull out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Ok maybe not convicted but wanted by his own country to face trial for terroist offences In no way do I condone what he is suspected of however he has been in custody for a shed load of time with no trial. Why the f*** have we been paying for this??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 He seems a nice enough guy to me, he's just misunderstood. Then again, I feel I have to say the above or I will be deemed a closet racist/Islamaphobic/EDL supporter. I personally think that we should deport him and take on the powers that be at a later point. So, we break the law, I think that is the lesser of the two evils and we 'd have enough moral and ethical ammunition to justify our actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 If he is as innocent as he claims why doesn't he volunteer to go back to Jordan so he can clear his name? Then he could go back to the UK and be refused entry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Thing is its easy to see him for the evil **** he obviously is, no mistake and if guilty of everything he is accused of, he deserves hit proper punishment. But the ECHR exists for a simple reason. IF we as a nation do not believe in torture or imprisonment without trial, or consider ourselves morally superior to countries where these things occure or they cut your hand off for theft etc, then we cantly simply send folk to those countries irrespective of what evil bastards they are... its no difefrent form doing that stuff here. I know it doe not seem right that we are stuck with these f*ckers, but ultimately its says more about our civilised and moral code, one of the reasons we can TRUELY be proud of this country than constantly using it as a stick because some have a gripe against the EU or dont agree with our membership. We should not be sending anyone to places of torture regardless of EU membership or not - for me its not helpful to either issue.... its just convenient to say its all the ECHR fault... PUT it this way - how do folk react to these options: 1. We cant send evil bastard to be tried in his own country because of the interfering wet ECHR dictating UK extradition policy.... 2. Britain has a rule of law and a moral ethical code that means we do not send accused criminals to be tried in states where human rights do not exist and where torture and imprisonment without trial is common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Frank's, he's not British, it's not our job to keep and protect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Frank's, he's not British, it's not our job to keep and protect him. Not the point Whitey, seriously, just cos he aint one of ours does not mean we should drop any moral code we should be proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Not the point Whitey' date=' seriously, just cos he aint one of ours does not mean we should drop any moral code we should be proud of.[/quote'] what moral code...he would happily have your head cut off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 It's worth remembering that these courts were set up following suggestions by none other than Winston Churchill at the end of WW2 to ensure that never again, in Europe, were people subject to evil governments. The remit has been extended, as Frank says, to ensure that we're not complicit in torture. Most of the work done by these courts relates to Eastern European citizens apparently. There's no doubt in my mind that this man is evil and that he doesn't belong in this country. But the trouble with law is that we have to take its application for good and bad. To ignore the law would be like belonging to a club but only choosing to abide by some of the rules. I want to see him gone. I just hope the Home Office hasn't f**ked up big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2012 There's no doubt in my mind that this man is evil and that he doesn't belong in this country. But the trouble with law is that we have to take its application for good and bad. To ignore the law would be like belonging to a club but only choosing to abide by some of the rules. . no it does not. he hates this country he hates you he hates me he would happily cut your head off how about, protect the people that don't feel as angry as him and send him away from the very country he hates.. it is an absolute farce and an embarrassment you can take each case on its own merits...this is not some confused idiot that managed to hack into a computer network...this is a lunatic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 no it does not. he hates this country he hates you he hates me he would happily cut your head off how about, protect the people that don't feel as angry as him and send him away from the very country he hates.. it is an absolute farce and an embarrassment you can take each case on its own merits...this is not some confused idiot that managed to hack into a computer network...this is a lunatic But the trouble with law is that we have to take its application for good and bad. To ignore the law would be like belonging to a club but only choosing to abide by some of the rules. This is the bit you need to understand, Jamie, regardless of our collective views on this man. You can't pick and choose which laws you'll abide by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 what moral code...he would happily have your head cut off True which make him and his ilk a bunch of total ****s. I and thankfully the more enlightened, educated, civilised human beings witin this country and the ECHR would not do teh same to him - because we are better than him and not ****s... Head from body seperaters = ****s Not sending folk to be relived of their barnet = not ****s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2012 But the trouble with law is that we have to take its application for good and bad. To ignore the law would be like belonging to a club but only choosing to abide by some of the rules. This is the bit you need to understand, Jamie, regardless of our collective views on this man. You can't pick and choose which laws you'll abide by. well, you can and you should if whats his face breivik was here...would you feel the same if norway wanted him back...? this fella is a lunatic and we should NOT be tied down by a faceless court...we should be, in our pretty liberal country, be able to send away horrifically dangerous people as we see fit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 (edited) well, you can and you should if whats his face breivik was here...would you feel the same if norway wanted him back...? this fella is a lunatic and we should NOT be tied down by a faceless court...we should be, in our pretty liberal country, be able to send away horrifically dangerous people as we see fit Extradition to Norway would be fine as they abide by an international code on Human rights and do not torture said arsehole in prison - thats the point. It the rights and freedoms this country fought the frickin Nazis for. To use the 'liberal' position is very poor. This is not a 'liberal' position but one of a law that 100,000s of britains died to defend. Edited 19 April, 2012 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Extradition to Norway would be fine as they abide by an international code on Human rights and do not torture said arsehole in prison - thats the point. It the rights and freedoms this country fought the frickin Nazis for. To use the 'liberal' position is very poor. This is not a 'liberal' position but one of a law that 100' date='000s of britains died to defend.[/quote'] and jordan won't..? who are you to say that...? even the ECHR said it was fine to send him...right..? now we have to wait for this bollix of appeal. he will go, make no mistake..just the circus we have no is utterly embarrassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 and jordan won't..? who are you to say that...? even the ECHR said it was fine to send him...right..? now we have to wait for this bollix of appeal. he will go, make no mistake..just the circus we have no is utterly embarrassing The right appeal is part of that law - if someone fecked up on dates that has nothing to do with the ECHR or the law itself.... but a admin feck up... so cant see why folk are having a dig at the ECHR/extradition rules etc becasue of an admin cock up - but its the same old, same old who anti EU brigade who jump on every such issue and twist it into a Brussels/Strasbourg v UK thing when ithat has nothing to do with it. Same way as the right wing press used to trawl out the old Bah bah Green sheep 'PC gone mad' bull shiedt every now ang againt to discredit the left wing GLC in London - a story that MADE UP in the first place..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Not the point Whitey' date=' seriously, just cos he aint one of ours does not mean we should drop any moral code we should be proud of.[/quote'] Am I my brother's keeper? He should be judged by his fellow citizens, and that ain't us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 The right appeal is part of that law - if someone fecked up on dates that has nothing to do with the ECHR or the law itself.... but a admin feck up... so cant see why folk are having a dig at the ECHR/extradition rules etc becasue of an admin cock up - but its the same old, same old who anti EU brigade who jump on every such issue and twist it into a Brussels/Strasbourg v UK thing when ithat has nothing to do with it. Same way as the right wing press used to trawl out the old Bah bah Green sheep 'PC gone mad' bull shiedt every now ang againt to discredit the left wing GLC in London - a story that MADE UP in the first place..... Not a cock-up. He has had three months to appeal and his was lodged one hour before what he thought was the deadline. That is taking the p1ss. Our government have their view of the deadline. Some judges in Strasbourg have a different one. Our government is under our democratic control. Kick him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 We'll get round to it, it just takes time, too long in this case. But we can't alter the law for one special case as we will only regret it later. As for Theresa May, I've always said she is a weak link and she has proved herself incompetent again. She should resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 19 April, 2012 Share Posted 19 April, 2012 Not a cock-up. He has had three months to appeal and his was lodged one hour before what he thought was the deadline. That is taking the p1ss. Our government have their view of the deadline. Some judges in Strasbourg have a different one. Our government is under our democratic control. Kick him out. It might appear 'taking the ****' but the rule of law should be upheld - if after the deadline then ship him out - if before then we have to deal with it. Quite simple despite how unpaletable it seems - Its why I cant see what all the fuss is about. Either he got in appeal befor the legal deadline or he did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 Look, I'm a touchy-feely, wishy-washy, middle of the road, liberal, and even I say just chuck him out. Oh and by the way, sack May for cocking it up big time. Don't let the politicians pin it on some poor minion who'll lose his job to save her face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 Look, I'm a touchy-feely, wishy-washy, middle of the road, liberal, and even I say just chuck him out. Oh and by the way, sack May for cocking it up big time. Don't let the politicians pin it on some poor minion who'll lose his job to save her face She has history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2012 Look, I'm a touchy-feely, wishy-washy, middle of the road, liberal, and even I say just chuck him out. Oh and by the way, sack May for cocking it up big time. Don't let the politicians pin it on some poor minion who'll lose his job to save her face id she has cocked this up then she should go and go quickly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 It might appear 'taking the ****' but the rule of law should be upheld - if after the deadline then ship him out - if before then we have to deal with it. Quite simple despite how unpaletable it seems - Its why I cant see what all the fuss is about. Either he got in appeal befor the legal deadline or he did not. That's what all the fuss is about. He and his lawyers think that they did, our government and its lawyers say that they didn't. They were trying to be clever and delay everything to the last possible minute. Now they are appealing because their appeal has been deemed as out of time. There is a technical legal argument about the exact day which independents agree is possibly ambiguous. The fact is that three months give or take a day is plenty of time. He's had his chance, now kick him out. Preferably at 30,000 feet if he doen't want to pay the landing fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 That's what all the fuss is about. He and his lawyers think that they did, our government and its lawyers say that they didn't. They were trying to be clever and delay everything to the last possible minute. Now they are appealing because their appeal has been deemed as out of time. There is a technical legal argument about the exact day which independents agree is possibly ambiguous. The fact is that three months give or take a day is plenty of time. He's had his chance, now kick him out. Preferably at 30,000 feet if he doen't want to pay the landing fees. I repeat i'm all for chucking him out regardless, but it isn't ambiguous. The european court agree with his lawyers, and after all it is their court and their rules. It is just Theresa May who who somehow intepreted the really difficult word 'from' incorrectly. As in "2 days from today Friday" according to her would mean up to midnight on Saturday, whereas to everyone else it is up to midnight on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 Trouble is that with all these international bodies that supercede national legislation, democratic countries are becoming ungovernable because there's always a high authority to which to appeal.Look at the BOA and drugs cheats.A national body can no longer make it's own rules, apply them and stick to them.This used to be the basis of any form of governance, you know the rules,stick to them or you'll be punished,when that's no longer the case all you have left is anarchy. If you want an example of the total breakdown of any sort of public order you only have to look as far as South Africa, the old system was rotten but the new one is just a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunrise Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 Just deport him and sod the ECHR, I'm pretty sure scum like Qatada and his ilk wouldn't give a damn about the human rights of any potential victims of terrorist activities they are implicated in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 We can't just ignore the law. The only reason he is going to be out for so long now is because we cocked up on the law ourselves thanks to our wonderful Home Secretary. If we start making exceptions to the law, it is a slippery slope. He'll be deported, and as I have said it's taken long enough already, but we have to go through the right hoops(though there are more hoops now thanks to May). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 I repeat i'm all for chucking him out regardless, but it isn't ambiguous. The european court agree with his lawyers, and after all it is their court and their rules. It is just Theresa May who who somehow intepreted the really difficult word 'from' incorrectly. As in "2 days from today Friday" according to her would mean up to midnight on Saturday, whereas to everyone else it is up to midnight on Sunday. We're not talking about 2 days here, we're talking about 3 months. Everybody agrees it is ambiguous, something which can always be a problem when someone is draughting laws in what is not their natural language. And by the way, '2 days from today' means Sunday to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 We can't just ignore the law. The only reason he is going to be out for so long now is because we cocked up on the law ourselves thanks to our wonderful Home Secretary. If we start making exceptions to the law, it is a slippery slope. He'll be deported, and as I have said it's taken long enough already, but we have to go through the right hoops(though there are more hoops now thanks to May). But the law is imprecise. The decision was not hers alone, there was a whole bank of lwayers behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2012 just another reason why the whole european experiment is a load of bollix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 (edited) We can't just ignore the law. The only reason he is going to be out for so long now is because we cocked up on the law ourselves thanks to our wonderful Home Secretary. If we start making exceptions to the law, it is a slippery slope. He'll be deported, and as I have said it's taken long enough already, but we have to go through the right hoops(though there are more hoops now thanks to May). Course we can, it's not our law and we don't have to take any notice of it.The French don't,unless it suits them of course,when they chucked out the Roms it was on their interpretation of the law and they didn't give a toss what some Irish commy thought about it. It's partially why the Uk has become a haven for some pretty dodgy characters,once they're in it's such a big deal to sling them out.Look at the other knob there, Assange,made a mockery of the UK justice system.If you've a bit of money in the UK you can always find some loophole to exploit. Edited 20 April, 2012 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 Course we can, it's not our law and we don't have to take any notice of it.The French don't,unless it suits them of course,when they chucked out the Roms it was on their interpretation of the law and they didn't give a toss what some Irish commy thought about it. It is our law though because the 1998 HR's act built it into our law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2012 It is our law though because the 1998 HR's act built it into our law. if its our law...we should be able to change it as we see fit to get rid of hoffirically nasty people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 We're not talking about 2 days here, we're talking about 3 months. Everybody agrees it is ambiguous, something which can always be a problem when someone is draughting laws in what is not their natural language. And by the way, '2 days from today' means Sunday to me. Exactly. I gave the 2 day example to illustrate more clearly the stupidity of May's interpretation. Surely that was obvious? 'Everybody' does not agree it is ambiguous. The government here say one thing (the equivalent of saturday in my 2 day example) whilst the court itself, plus of course Qatada's lawyers, and apparently plus you too in effect, say the other (the equivalent of the sunday in my example) And I still say throw him out anyway! Just sack May as well. Don't make some poor sod of an official with a mortgage take the blame for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 Exactly. I gave the 2 day example to illustrate more clearly the stupidity of May's interpretation. Surely that was obvious? 'Everybody' does not agree it is ambiguous. The government here say one thing (the equivalent of saturday in my 2 day example) whilst the court itself, plus of course Qatada's lawyers, and apparently plus you too in effect, say the other (the equivalent of the sunday in my example) And I still say throw him out anyway! Just sack May as well. Don't make some poor sod of an official with a mortgage take the blame for her. I agree. It's her responsibility to make sure she has interpreted the law correctly. Instead, as the deadline passed, she was at a ****-up. Sack her. It's unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 if its our law...we should be able to change it as we see fit to get rid of hoffirically nasty people The law is sufficient at the moment and he would be on his way to Jordan soon enough if not for May's cock up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 If I break the law and drive too fast I face a fine and points on my licence. If I break the law and murder someone I face a lifetime in prison. So what happens if the country breaks the law, ignores the ECHR and deports him anyway. Can't lock up a whole country. Is there a fine? Will the rest of the EU simply not talk to us anymore? Just do it, sod the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2012 The law is sufficient at the moment and he would be on his way to Jordan soon enough if not for May's cock up. the law is not sufficient. he should have gone a long time ago.... I would rather the money spent on all this going to hospitals...dont you agree andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 the law is not sufficient. he should have gone a long time ago.... I would rather the money spent on all this going to hospitals...dont you agree andrew I agree, obviously. But you could say that about anything. Any criminal or deportation etc the Law has to be abided by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 April, 2012 I agree, obviously. But you could say that about anything. Any criminal or deportation etc the Law has to be abided by. then, this is an example where the law needs to change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 If I break the law and drive too fast I face a fine and points on my licence. If I break the law and murder someone I face a lifetime in prison. So what happens if the country breaks the law, ignores the ECHR and deports him anyway. Can't lock up a whole country. Is there a fine? Will the rest of the EU simply not talk to us anymore? Just do it, sod the consequences. The ECHR isn't part of the EU, it's the council of Europe. It has 47 members including Switzerland and Russia. I don't see why people are suddenly rushing for the government not to abide by the law. It might be convenient now, but later on it could lead to bad consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 then, this is an example where the law needs to change I don't think so. I don't think the law, which is perfectly sufficient in 99.9% of cases needs to be changed for what is basically a rarity. It's just like when they banned protest in Parliament Square just because they were ****ed off with Brian Haw. Using a sledgehammer to crack a nut rarely works out okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 20 April, 2012 Share Posted 20 April, 2012 The ECHR isn't part of the EU, it's the council of Europe. It has 47 members including Switzerland and Russia. I don't see why people are suddenly rushing for the government not to abide by the law. It might be convenient now, but later on it could lead to bad consequences. Do you think Russia abides by the ECHR rules everytime they want to sling someone out or deal with a troublemaker...I don't think so.As for the Swiss forget it, whatever they vote in their frequent referendums is the law and they don't give a monkey's about what the outside world thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now