So Is Qatada To Go Home?

[DTCwordfan]

We've signed a treaty with Jordan.....apparently.

Have we really changed the rules of the game?

Why don't we put him on a plane and be done with it? What would the ramifications be except putting two fingers up to the ECHR?

[craft1948]

I'd put him on the next plane, but if we did that could the Home Secretary get done for contempt of court?

[DTCwordfan]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t_Etdyk0GQU/T5KI5prK4kI/AAAAAAAAB9I/_OQ_aAfyzIo/s1600/qatada-palaver.jpg

possibly, crafty....New Judge around?

[douglas9401]

Contempt of court wouldn't be an issue if he'd been wheed straight back early doors and consequences dealt with as they arose.

[New Judge]

Is the Pope a Muslim?

Do bears use public conveniences in the High Street?

[baza]

the way these lawyers keep milking the system I reckon the barsteward will still be here well after I'm dead and gone.

[aelmpvw]

//We've signed a treaty with Jordan.....apparently.//
it's bound to go wrong if she gets involved

[DTCwordfan]

Anybody seen a cost yet for keeping the shag-bag in prison, under police control, MI5 work, lawyers, parliamentary time and all the rest - I bet it's way over £20 mln and the rest.

[Orderlimit]

Qatada should have been thrown out back in 1995, when he issued a Fatwa justified the killing of anyone in Algeria, including women and children who converted from Islam, and this is from a dangerous extremist who claimed asylum on the grounds of religious persecution!. In 1997, Abu Qatada is alleged to have called on Muslims to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers. Again in 1999, he effectively issued a fatwa authorising the killing of Jews, including Jewish children", and all the other vile nonsense he influences. A convicted international terrorist and our own domestic laws can't get rid of him.

[baza]

Time for a change in the law, or we could just ship him out and stuff the consequences and the yuman rites brigade

[jake-the-peg]

There are two sorts of people here

Those that oly care about human rights that affect them, their friends and famillies

And those that care about them for everybody because of what happens when you start picking out one group of people and say 'you don't have the same rights as other people'

If you think that you're a member of a third group that doesn't care about them at all - that's probably because you've never been deprived of them

[Brenden]

I would like to be deprived of him Jake.

[New Judge]

The third group, jake, is those who believe that every measure necessary to ensure he is not mistreated when deported has been taken and since it is generally agreed that he is not wanted in the UK it's about time he was shipped out. The matter of his Human Rights has been adequately addressed.

[jake-the-peg]

For a man of the Law NJ you seem awfully keen to ignore the general principles of it and start making 'special cases'.

As I recall the judges acknowledged that sucessive home secretaries thought this man was dangerous but pointed out that was not a legal consideration.

Or would you like the UK Home Secretary to be given arbitary power unregulated by law?

[Gromit]

No. Well not soon anyway.

This whole thing about a treaty is a red herring. It has come much too late. News of it is really just designed for May to save face. It is a meaningless piece of news.

It is rather like being fined for not having a TV licence, then going out and buying one and then trying to get your conviction squash because you now have the bit of paper. That is exactly what has happened here. The Government needed the treaty with Jordan BEFORE they went yo court, not after.

[New Judge]

The issue is whether his Human Rights may not be respected if he is sent to Jordan for trial. The main thrust of that issue is that he may be tried using evidence gathereed by torture. It seems the UK government has done everything possible to ensure that will not be the case. The latest treaty does little to add to the measures that have already been taken.

So no, jake, I don't think that Qatada is a "special case" and nor do I wish politicians to acquire arbitary judicial powers. What I'd like is for the law to be applied sensibly and for judges to provide sensible outcomes to serious problems. There is no earthly reason why this man should remain in the UK and if judges are interpreting the law in a way that means he can then the law needs amending - by politicians.

[longshadows]

Just kick the parasite out

[jim360]

Well in that certainly we're in agreement NJ. Let judges judge and legislators legislate if they don't like the way the judges judge.

I hope, but doubt, that this treaty will change things.

[emmie]

no he is not, and won't be any day soon, unless of course the earth opens up and swallows him

[Orderlimit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275000

[sir.prize]

Kicking the parasite out will only lead to the courts ruling he is returned - and Britain pay him compensation.