We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. If you continue to use this site, we'll assume you're happy with this. Alternatively, click here to find out how to manage these cookies

hide cookie message
Contact Forum Editor

Send an email to our Forum Editor:


PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the Forum Editor know who sent the message. Both your name and email address will not be used for any other purpose.

Speakers Corner


It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion


 

Abu Qatada release: Cameron 'fed up'


Forum Editor
Resolved

Likes # 0

There does seem to be something quite ridiculous about a situation in which a man who is - to use our Prime Minister's own words "..has no right to be here, we believe he's a threat to our country," and yet cannot be expelled by us.

We literally cannot put this individual on a plane out of here because someone sitting in a court in Strasbourg decided that he would not get a fair trial in Jordan, where he's wanted.

I'm well-known for championing the rule of law, but there are times when I wonder if we haven't lost sight of the ball, and this is one of them. In 21 days our government must either come up with a valid legal reason for an appeal against the ruling or release Abu Qatada back into the community. It's a cast iron guarantee that his lawyers will challenge every inch of the way.

Perhaps we should send the man to Strasbourg, and let them have the problem.

Like this post
tryanothername

Likes # 0

Looking from a different angle. If legal aid was restricted to a set amount of money or the number of times you can claim. Would that have cut down on the number of appeals he could have gone through.

Would his radical fundamentalist followers in Britain contribute to the tune of £1million + or the lawyers feverishly work for nothing after they have drained the last penny from legal aid.

Surely a cap on the total anyone can claim via legal aid would cover the vast majority of normal cases.

This could be one piece of legislation that the government could introduce and get around future cases, if not the current one.

Like this post
Fruit Bat /\0/\

Likes # 0

If we can't send him to Jordon why can't we send him somewhere else instead?

He has already stated (on film) that his followers should fight "westerners" to the death - so exile him to somewhere in the east.

Like this post
canarieslover

Likes # 0

*Fruit Bat /\0/*

'so exile him to somewhere in the east.'

As long as it isn't Essex thanks!!

Like this post
Mr Mistoffelees

Likes # 0

You may like to know there is an e-petition to sign.

Like this post
Bing.alau

Likes # 0

We could put him on a plane to Jordan any time in actual fact. But we would be breaking our own laws. Silly isn't it. We do not want to be seen to be breaking our own laws. "The rest of the world wouldn't be able to look up to us ever again" is the story I heard today. Well I have news for them, nobody looks up to us now. So we will be looked upon no differently.

Maybe some body can engage a hit man and put him away for good. That would save an awful lot of money here and in Jordan.

Like this post
Fruit Bat /\0/\

Likes # 0

canarieslover

I was thinking a lot further east than Essex but about 100 miles east of Essex should be good enough

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"The rule of law is one thing. But what we are seeing here is a simple perversion of it."

No we're not, we're seeing the application of it, as enacted by politicians, led the the Prime Minister, not necessarily the current one, but successive ones.

The judges don't make the law, the politicians do.

If Cameron is si fed up with the law, let him change it. No-one is better placed.

And don't tell me it's Strasbourg Law, it's British law which makes Strasbourg Law applicable in the UK.

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

Strasbourg? I'm confused now, I thought it was UK Mr Justice Mitting (Sir John Mitting) - The Special Immigration Appeals Commission - that has made the ruling.

Like this post
lotvic

Likes # 0

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

Apologies for my error in misreading the BBC piece - it was not a Strasbourg judge who ordered Abu Qatada's release on bail.

It makes little difference to my central point however, which is that government lawyers have to scratch around to find valid grounds for an appeal within 21 days, or the man will be released into the community. He will, that is, unless the Home secretary can devise something to keep him detained.

Why hasn't he been charged here? Because there isn't enough evidence with which to bring a prosecution, despite the fact that he has publicly endorsed suicide bomb attacks, and has been described as the head of the mujahideen in Britain.

He'll end up being here for many years.

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

LG G Watch review: Android Wear smartwatch is the best around, so far

IDG UK Sites

How to join Apple's OS X Beta Seed Program: Get OS X Yosemite on your Mac before public release

IDG UK Sites

Why the BBC iPlayer outage was caused by a DDoS attack: Topsy and Tim isn't *that* popular

IDG UK Sites

See Glasgow 2014 in UHD as history is made