Here she goes again

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275000Part VI - Return of the Jedi[/url

I'm not certain how guaranteeing him a fair trial on the basis of some rapidly drawn up agreement gets round the fact that some of the evidence that would be used against him was obtained in the past, allegedly by using torture (which is my understanding of why it has fallen down previously). Are the Jordanians saying that they'll forget all about that and obtain new evidence for a new trial? Are they that keen to get him back?

Qatada is an out and out scumbag, but as many have pointed out, we have to abide by the rule of law and if he can't be deported lawfully, he can't be deported.

I was half hoping that the UK would temporarily withdraw from the ECHR to achieve their aim, which, while it smacks of an utterly desperate government, would at least have given me the opportunity to abuse the human rights of some coalition politicians with virtual impunity.

A temporary withdrawal from the ECHR would be ludicrous and more particularly a dangerous precedent.

It was being suggested in various media beforehand and apparently mentioned in the House.

And I agree with you.

Good idea, stick a nice Geranium and a Begonia in amongst them while they are distracted burning effigies of May

So you think the government should be able to pick and choose which court rulings they abide by?

The first duty of a government is to protect it's citizens from harm (or should be), it seems the first duty of the courts is to protect the scum want to cause the harm. I bet you will find a lot of muslims want shut of him just as much as anyone, but the courts just seem to go against anything governments try to do and certainly seem to go against public opinion (even when it's the right thing to do).

I don't have a problem with putting this piece of scum on a plane.

There should be a common sense clause in laws like this. We're giving him a living and in return he preaches hate against us on our own streets?

I'd just stick him on the plane and wish the Jordanians all the best, he's their citizen, they should take responsibility for him.

Ah, the Court of Public Opinion should hold preference? The same Court of Public Opinon that would have seen countless ultimately proven-innocent people executed?

Stick your "Public Opinion" up your ar[is[/ie

Please phrase "common sense"in a legal way, so that laws can be recognised and adhered to

This is a war and in times of war there is no requirement to go through the courts. Qatada and all of his ideological cohorts who have declared war on this country should immediately be stopped. You cannot win a war when your primary concerns are the human rights of those trying to destroy you.

Actually, even though you are a spoof account, thats where you are wrong.

The duty of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. If the government is allowed to ignore their rulings when the result doesn't favour them, it doesn't take a genius to work out where that would lead.

The judiciary is independent for a very good reason, and whilst this may lead to undesirable outcomes from time to time, the alternatives are much, much less desirable.

What the hell does that even mean?

1.2 (a) (iii) This statute shall apply in England and Wales, unless the Daily Mail says otherwise.

The first duty of the courts is to interpret and apply the law regardless of politics.
If you start making exceptions according to public opinion etc, you are in effect introducing mob rule which damages the whole point of the law in the first place.

Don't you think that the senior judiciary have there own agenda, this decision is just their way of shoving two fingers up at government (whatever colour it is) and nothing to do with whats right.

I feel substantially more threatened by a government seeking to pick and choose which laws it adheres to as and when it feels like it than I do about a bile-spouter like Qatada who is easily ignored, patronised, belittled, whatever.

As far as conspiracy theories go, that's one of the least intelligent I've heard for some time.

One of !!!, at least it's not the worst.

Deary me.



What 'agenda' might this be? And will wearing a tinfoil hat protect me from it?

Oh - and the courts are about what's [ilawful[/i. The minute we start setting aside our laws because we feel threatened then scum like Qatada have won. Simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Ben Franklin

It's ok, we've got the Jordanians to sign something that says he won't be tortured any more and that they won't use evidence gained under torture against him.

No right minded judge could possibly doubt that this hastily concocted, back of an envelope agreement of convenience won't be adhered to by those lovely Jordanians.

If only the UK government put as much time and effort into getting one of their own citizens repatriated from Guantanamo, where he's being held on the basis of evidence obtained under torture.

He's been here 20 years. Why has he never been prosecuted here?

Because he hasn't done anything here that we can prosecute him for.

Thought so. But he's been in gaol for most of that time?

Why? Britain has had, throughput its history, an almost unparalleled respect for the liberties of its citizens. Why do we need European judges to tell our government how to behave?

The whole concept of the ECHR is ludicrous. It is nonsense that just because Germany cannot be trusted to stay within its borders or refrain from committing genocide that a panel of unelected foreigners, who descend from countries where traditionally liberty and democracy are alien concepts, should dictate to Britain (who along with the Americans gave freedom and democracy to Europe) that we cannot deport a terrorist to his country of origin.

The solution to the German problem was not to implement an ECHR that decides how the British government can deal with criminals or terrorists. Nor was the answer to create an EU federal state whereby the sovereignty of every nation in Europe is subjugated under German rule. The answer was to break Germany up. Thatcher understood this, hence her opposition to reunification.