[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16590662[/url

The European Court of Human Rights has overruled our courts on Abu Qatada's deportation, saying that he can't be removed from the UK because of Jordan's record on torture.

What a shivering, evil basstard of a man this is. The best example of double standards, and using the enemy's weakness against it, that you could find. He must be laughing his cock off.

I'm sure Andre reckons that's a whole different discussion.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: "I am disappointed that the court has made this ruling. This is not the end of the road."

Probably gonna have a little word with those fellas who 'fixed' the Iranian scientists.

Just send him back anyway, it's our country, sod the EU.

Pitchfork and flaming torch optional I guess?

You advocating ignoring the rule of law?

(not saying I agree with the judgment mind..)

Quote ="Horatio Yed"Just send him back anyway, it's our country, sod the EU.'" I was wondering when that would come up. The European Convention on Human Rights and the court enforcing it have nothing to do with the EU. Just saying. www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/DF ... ref_EN.pdf

Quote ="Horatio Yed"Just send him back anyway, it's our country, sod the EU.'" I was wondering when that would come up. The European Convention on Human Rights and the court enforcing it have nothing to do with the EU. Just saying. www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/DF ... ref_EN.pdf

You've actually lost your understanding of words and what they mean, haven't you?

No i'm saying he's in our country and we don't want him, kick him out, sod it then dump him in Strasbourg, they are the ones saying it's against his human rights.
Judges are elected by majority vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, something else i'm against.

If out Judges don't want him here, and our people don't want him here then WHY do WE have to keep him HERE.

Because we signed the European Convention of Human Rights, a binding treaty, and it forbids torture. The ruling is not difficult to understand, whether or not you agree with it.

Because someone at some point decided (with agreement) that the ECHR would have jurisdiction over the UK in these matters.

I take it you missed the story that the ECHR has also ruled in [ufavour[/u of the UK to keep a number of multiple murderers behind bars for life. Potentially a good news story to match the bad news of this one, but relegated to third on the BBC new site when announced. Bad news "sells"

Edit - good news story now 4th

Sure about that?

IIRC, it was one W Churchill who signed up to this originally.

As tb points out, this is not an EU body.

Were we not given diplomatic assurances that they will not face torture?

Here's a useful QandA from the Beeb www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16594683

Here's a useful QandA from the Beeb www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16594683

Quote ="tb"Here's a useful QandA from the Beeb www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16594683'" "The court has made clear that if the UK obtained an assurance from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture would not be used against Abu Qatada at trial, there would be nothing to stop his deportation." Important point

Quote ="tb"Here's a useful QandA from the Beeb www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16594683'" "The court has made clear that if the UK obtained an assurance from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture would not be used against Abu Qatada at trial, there would be nothing to stop his deportation." Important point

Like those diplomatic assurances that UK intelligence agencies weren't at all involved in the rendition of "terror suspects" back to Libya?

Apparently so and they were accepted. It's the evidence that may be used against his that was allegedly obtained by torturing others that's the issue.

I doubt that, but then if I had, I quite possibly would, so perhaps I did, only if I did, and you had said what specifically I had purportedly misunderstood, then I would have had a chance of considering whether I had, or hadn't, insofar of course as I could, but as you didn't, I can't. So can you?

Surely the security services would be able to bump him off without arising too much suspision.

Said on radio today that France and Italy have ignored these rulings in the past and deported anyway. Seems as in fishing, we seem to obey everything and others pick to suit.

I am sure he is a danger to us, even our inept security services must have some compelling evidence to keep him locked up for so long. My worry is that we will be conned into releasing him and will suffer the consequences in blood, like the 7/7 attacks.

He's no danger to us whatsoever while he's locked up in Belmarsh, and there is just about zero chance of him being released. We have quite a range of options open to us, not least of which is prosecuting him here. This is far from the end of the story.

Lets hope Group 4 know EXACTLY where he is, or we could have a problem

Simple, lets start torturing him and then see what happens in the appeal?

five to seven