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
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

morddwyd

**"In which case they should have evidence. Let them produce it and prosecute."**

Don't be naive.

Intelligence services get information from all kinds of sources, but you can't go to court and face a jury saying 'we know beyond reasonable doubt that this man is a threat to our society, but we can't produce any evidence because we got it from someone inside the accused's organisation, and he would be killed if he came here to give evidence.'

As for 'it can only be done by the judiciary, not the legislature' you're being naive again. Judges are there to interpret and enforce the laws that politicians make. The politicians are the ones who create the means for judges to act,and politicians can modify what's already there. That's precisely what I'm advocating, and precisely the point you seem not to understand.

Like this post
Flak999

Likes # 0

That the law needs to be revised seems beyond doubt. The fact that this country is being made a laughing stock in the eyes of the world, due to its inability to deal with undesirable foreign nationals who are using clever lawyers to exploit loopholes in a badly framed piece of legislation, to avoid themselves being deported to countries which have a legitimate reason for their extradition is a sad reflection on Parliaments law makers and brings our legal system into disrepute.

I have to say, I agree completely with FE post of 12.41, the man should be gone. All foreign nationals that have the privilege of living in this country and who espouse terrorism and murder against the people of this country and our western way of life to my mind forfeit the right to continue living here!

Like this post
morddwyd

Likes # 0

"The politicians are the ones who create the means for judges to act,and politicians can modify what's already there. That's precisely what I'm advocating, and precisely the point you seem not to understand."

I suggest you re-read mu post of 9.08 on 13th

" 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."

Like this post
flycatcher1

Likes # 0

Flak99

Perfectly put. I agree with every word.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

fourm member

You really do need to comment on what I said, rather than on what you've decided I said.

You said: "saying people who know about these things know about these things and we don't need to examine that knowledge in the light of a courtroom is a very bizarre notion."

It is indeed, so thank goodness I didn't say anything of the kind. What I actually said was: you can't go to court and face a jury saying 'we know beyond reasonable doubt that this man is a threat to our society, but we can't produce any evidence because we got it from someone inside the accused's organisation, and he would be killed if he came here to give evidence.

Which of course is something quite different. Note the words 'you can't go to court'. I was responding to someone else's post in any case, the one that asked why our government hasn't charged this man. My response provided the answer - you can't go to court without presenting evidence on which to base a case. You may well have evidence, as I said, but if the people who provided it are in fear of their lives you can't use it. It's naive of anyone not to understand that simple fact, and I'm very surprised to learn that you couldn't see it.

As for me sounding as if I was advocating ignoring the law - I invite you to point out where I said that.

Regarding plotting and scheming, are you seriously suggesting that there's a "real difference" between planning terrorist acts and inciting others to carry them out? Both are serious crimes, and the dividing line between planning the indiscriminate killing of non-believers and inciting others to plan the same thing is distinctly blurred.

The threat of terrorism is indeed frightening, and I find nothing unreasonable in suggesting a change in the law that might go some way to alleviate that fear. The law is there - or should be there - to protect society from people who seek to harm it. There will be occasions when those very people use the law to their advantage, and thereby sustain or increase the threat to society. My view is that the majority will find that unacceptable, and that something could, and should be done to legislate for a solution in these unusual circumstances. Legislative solutions to changing situations; it's been known to happen on many occasions in the past.

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

"SO WHY HASN'T HE BEEN CHARGED????"

In the words of Inspector Morse - evidence, dear boy, evidence.

He hasn't been charged because the inciting didn't take place within the area of UK jurisdiction - you can't charge someone with an offence that was committed in another country.

Qatada did say, in a BBC interview, that he supported a policy of suicide bombing, but that doesn't constitute incitement.

A Spanish judge said - in court - that he was aware that this man was the head of a terrorist organisation in the UK, but that isn't grounds for a prosecution either.

Let's all give up,like you, and hope the problem will go away, shall we?

Like this post
TonyV

Likes # 0

Forum Editor

But it won't, will it!!

I see now he is asking to move to yet another bigger house to house his family. Is that a God given right? If so, I can imagine a lot of people in this country, legal or illegal, will now apply for bigger and better properties, and we will end up footing the bill.

I ask a simple question, if he were to return to Jordan, what sort of property would he and his be living in, assuming he were to be a free man, as he almost appears to be here? I would take some convincing that it would be a comparable size/worth property! Don't forget, he came here originally an an illegal passport, so we should not be paying anything at all. He is here by default, and it is for him to satisfy his family's needs, no one else. I have to say I am sick to death of the whole sorry mess and sincerely hope that the Government can change the law PDQ to get him, and his family, away.

TonyV

Like this post
Forum Editor

Likes # 0

TonyV

He did come here on an illegal passport originally, but he applied for, and was granted asylum. That was 20 years ago.

You're right in saying that the British taxpayer is no more obligated to support this man and his family than any other person, but in the absence of any income - he's banned from working under the terms of his bail - that's what will happen.

Like this post  
TonyV

Likes # 0

FE

There is still no reason for the authorities to bow down to him/them and give them a larger house than the five bedroom place they use at the moment. What has he got, a battalion for a family? Five bedrooms should be more than enough so hopefully the council will tell him to go forth and multiply!!

TonyV

Like this post
TonyV

Likes # 0

Metaphorically speaking, that is!

TonyV

Like this post

Reply to this topic

This thread has been locked.



IDG UK Sites

Best Christmas 2014 UK tech deals, Boxing Day 2014 UK tech deals & January sales 2015 UK tech...

IDG UK Sites

Apple's 2014 highlights: the most significant Apple news of 2014

IDG UK Sites

2015 creative trends: 20 leading designers & artists reveal the biggest influences & changes coming)......

IDG UK Sites

Ultimate iOS 8 Tips: 35 awesome and advanced tips for using iOS 8 on iPhone and iPad