www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21955844 Well, it seems that Theresa May can't find a legal way of sending this bloke to Jordan to face trial. What's to be done?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21955844 Well, it seems that Theresa May can't find a legal way of sending this bloke to Jordan to face trial. What's to be done?

LOL, if I were him I'd be wary of men in pin-stripe suits following me closely with sharpened brolley's, or avoid hanging around London bridges late at night.

This might be the one time where a bit of good old fashioned rendition may be in order......

I hope we don't ever go down that path. But it's probably happened already.

Can't see that happening myself, too embarassing, even for Theresa May, who must have used up all her embarassment by now.

They should have renditioned him years ago and it wouldn't even be a story.

Maybe he has a cat.

Turned into a bit of an embarrassing day for HMG.

First the Qatada decision, then the Lords defeat on their attempt to remove Legal Aid from appellants against tribunal decisions (ironically, including immigration tribunals).

But as from 1st April, at the behest of their insurance company paymasters, they are of course fundamentally and right royally screwing anyone who is ever an innocent victim of a future accident.

Plus despite a narrow Lords defeat they are still bent on reducing employees' rights to claim against their employer where a criminal default has occurred. The employer may have committed a crime, but might still not have to pay for the injury.

Add this to the attempts to virtually abolish legal aid, and this bunch of crooks are systematically dismantling a system of access to justice which was once enviable, all for the benefit of big business and government coffers.

They should just shoot him, then get some bogus organisation to take responsibily. Let his nutter followers have a demonstration over his death, infiltrate it with a couple of plants, let them kick off with a bit of violence, allowing the police to wade in, give them a good kicking before locking them up.

Its quite disturbing how quickly people accept extra-judicial murder.

I agree with you.

Glorification leading to a dehumanisation ala Gadaffi.
Sad but true.

...in some hell-hole in Amman. This case has cost you and I, the UK Taxpayer, millions already, but we should perhaps stump up (sic!) the air fare.

He will be deported eventually. It hinges on if Jordan can be viewed as going to give him a fair trail and not reply on confessions extracted under torture, which his convictions when tried in his absence apparently rely on.

Once the govt can convince the courts Jordan isn't going to rely on torturing co-defendants he will be on a plane.

The government [uknow this is the situation[/u and this is the key phrase from the BBC article:

[iHe said government lawyers had "identified no error of law" and were "quarrelling with findings of fact".
[/i

which demolishes May's case in one sentence.

So the reason he hasn't been deported is because May went back to court with insufficient evidence. It begs the question why? Incompetence? Or what?

What it does show is however much everyone wants rid of Abu Qatada the rule of law still applies in the UK. It's why we as a country still command respect in the world and makes it easier for us (for example) to claim we are acting lawfully over things like the Falklands.

So those wanting us to behave as the Italians might and just allow the law to ridden rough shod over to deport him ought to think on that.

The failing of many a Home Secretary over the years. She won't be the last.



Amen brother.

I would shove him on the plane and tell the courts to do what they must.

Might be just a tad embarrassing to have the Home Secretary serving time.

I doubt it would come to that. The problem is that the courts are out of touch with public opinion on this matter, the Home Secretary has done everything she can to gain assurances from Jordan that they will not use 'unsavoury' evidence in his trial, but the judges won't accept this and allow him to stay costing us millions to keep him 'safe' and feed, cloth and house him and his family, while he does his damnedest to cause as much trouble as he can.

Enough is enough, we have a duty to care for 'decent' people who come he for help, but this scumbag and other terrorists and criminals use our weak systems to abuse what was set up to protect those in genuine need of help, not the likes of Qatadar who deserves all he gets. Get rid of him.

My fear is that we will end up with a reaction against all who seek help, rather than those who deserve to be booted out.

Doubt away, but I think you're mistaken. The alternative is basically the end of the rule of law. No person, or institution, or Government must ever be allowed to simply ignore the law if they find it convenient to do so.


Public opinion is not, and never should be, a factor when ruling on matters of law.

And this has never happened

There are a lot of instances where bad laws have been broken all over the world, in fact would women have the vote, trades unions been formed had the law of the land not been broken. Did you want miners jailed for secondary picketing, this was against the law ( a bad one, but still the law). How many laws were broken in South Africa to bring about the eventual end to apartheid.

Your statement is a bit too simplistic.

It's been tried with varying degrees of success.

Name the last time a Government minister simply and very publicly ignored a court ruling on anything serious. The courts would [ihave[/i to act.

Or do you think Theresa May is going through all these appeals for the fun of it?

The courts interpret the law, they don't put the statutes in place.
Politicians can take public opinion into account when they make a law but public opinion should have no place in judges' decisions.

I am afraid it is you with the simplistic view. There is no comparison with what went on with South Africa etc and the a judge upholding the law in this country in this case. The analogies you give do not hold. The fact Abu Qatada is a nasty bit of work everyone wants thrown out of the country is no reason to rip the law up that prevents it happening. That would remove the protection the law gives to people who are nothing like Abu Qatada who are in the same position where our courts have concluded that they face torture or unfair trials as a result of torture if extradited. You can't just throw him out without removing the protection the law gives to the deserving cases.

The best solution is a simple one whereby the government can convince the court with the law as it stands that he can be extradited. If it can't then it doesn't mean the law is wrong.

Your problem is who decides who is decent and who is a scumbag?

Extra-judicial deportation to countries and regimes known to torture, known to kill, because people are saying unpopular things arent the actions of a good society. To deport Abu Qatada, as is, would simply show our society to be as bad as what we are accusing him of being.

There is a chance, whether you believe it to be true or not, there is a chance that Abu Qatada isn’t as bad as being made out, that he shouldn’t be deported, and if not him then there is a chance that the law protecting him, is also protecting someone who is ‘innocent’. Ripping up the law which may be protecting Abu Qatada would also be ripping up the law protecting the innocent.