ChatterBank3 mins ago
What would happen...
33 Answers
if we just crated up Qatada and his family and just shipped them out to jordan.
I mean, seriously what could anybody actually do about it ?
If we just gave the ECHR the middle digit what can they do, I've got a relatively quite day so i've been trawling around the web and from what i can tell, there would appear to be sweet FA.
Germans and French and no doubt others seem to do what they want for their countries and ignore all sorts of EU & ECHR dictats and rulings, so why dont we ?
Is it as I suspect our politicians of all persuasions just dont have the bowlocks to do it or what ? there must be a some underlying reason.
Or perhaps they dont want to upset any apple carts so that when their time in politics here finishes they can then go and put their nose in the EU trough.
Seriously what is going on ?
I mean, seriously what could anybody actually do about it ?
If we just gave the ECHR the middle digit what can they do, I've got a relatively quite day so i've been trawling around the web and from what i can tell, there would appear to be sweet FA.
Germans and French and no doubt others seem to do what they want for their countries and ignore all sorts of EU & ECHR dictats and rulings, so why dont we ?
Is it as I suspect our politicians of all persuasions just dont have the bowlocks to do it or what ? there must be a some underlying reason.
Or perhaps they dont want to upset any apple carts so that when their time in politics here finishes they can then go and put their nose in the EU trough.
Seriously what is going on ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What would happen? Well, for a start, Teresa May would be starting a prison sentence for breaking UK law under which the deportation has been denied because we are signed into legal agreements with the ECHR.
Let's leave all the invective aside for a moment, and just consider what is going on here.
This man has not been accused, tried, or convicted of a crime here, but has spent seven years in detention while extradition hearings are completed.
The courts have decided that there is not sufficient guarentee that evidence gained under torture would not be used against him - hence no extradition, because the UK will not support a lehal process that permits this type of evidence.
You can wail and gnash and foam all you like, but the law is the law, and it works for everyone, not just those whom people are pereceived as being OK, but those whose rhetoric and attitude is utterly abhorent.
Because if the law does not protect everyone, it protects no-one, so it has to stand, however much we may not like what it means for us.
So be grateful that our laws are strong enough not to be bent to suit the howling of citizens who know little of the facts - because a lot is kept from us for national security reasons - we only hear a little bit of what is actually going on here.
Do you really imagine for one second that if the British government was able to legally and without repercussions worldwide extradite this horrible man, it would not have done so by now? We, and they are bound by the law, like it or not.
Let's leave all the invective aside for a moment, and just consider what is going on here.
This man has not been accused, tried, or convicted of a crime here, but has spent seven years in detention while extradition hearings are completed.
The courts have decided that there is not sufficient guarentee that evidence gained under torture would not be used against him - hence no extradition, because the UK will not support a lehal process that permits this type of evidence.
You can wail and gnash and foam all you like, but the law is the law, and it works for everyone, not just those whom people are pereceived as being OK, but those whose rhetoric and attitude is utterly abhorent.
Because if the law does not protect everyone, it protects no-one, so it has to stand, however much we may not like what it means for us.
So be grateful that our laws are strong enough not to be bent to suit the howling of citizens who know little of the facts - because a lot is kept from us for national security reasons - we only hear a little bit of what is actually going on here.
Do you really imagine for one second that if the British government was able to legally and without repercussions worldwide extradite this horrible man, it would not have done so by now? We, and they are bound by the law, like it or not.
I would rather we followed the rules of law and observed human rights legislation, rather than be transformed into a state indistinguishable from fascism and a police state.
Something slightly ironic is reading such proposals on a public forum a few days after remembrance sunday - a day commemorating, amongst others, the millions of people who died fighting just such regimes....
Something slightly ironic is reading such proposals on a public forum a few days after remembrance sunday - a day commemorating, amongst others, the millions of people who died fighting just such regimes....
I think the root of the fantasy of the "strong leader" is that people would like to be dictator themselves to be able to have their will carried out.
Don't like a trouble maker? No pinko judges - sling him out job done!
Someone was expressing a fantasy abou dropping him out of a Herculkes as I recall.
Next best thing is to be dictator by proxy - a strong man who shares your views and values to set the country straight!
But it's Pandoras box - eventually his policemen come for you or a member of your familly or a friend
I can't really think of an instance of a benign dictator that didn't end up with a secret police force dragging people away in the middle of the night.
But maybe you can
And what stands between us and that?
The thin principle that politicians make law and are bound by it themselves
Don't like a trouble maker? No pinko judges - sling him out job done!
Someone was expressing a fantasy abou dropping him out of a Herculkes as I recall.
Next best thing is to be dictator by proxy - a strong man who shares your views and values to set the country straight!
But it's Pandoras box - eventually his policemen come for you or a member of your familly or a friend
I can't really think of an instance of a benign dictator that didn't end up with a secret police force dragging people away in the middle of the night.
But maybe you can
And what stands between us and that?
The thin principle that politicians make law and are bound by it themselves
If he is here illegally then he has broken a UK law.
Why was he allowed to bring in his family .?
I know the answer of course because it applies to all the thousands of illigals in this country ' It would infringe their human rights to kick them out
even if there was no danger their home country. ' Even if there wasn't this question of torture it would still infringe their rights not to allow them to remain. As long as we have gutless governments it will always be so.
Why was he allowed to bring in his family .?
I know the answer of course because it applies to all the thousands of illigals in this country ' It would infringe their human rights to kick them out
even if there was no danger their home country. ' Even if there wasn't this question of torture it would still infringe their rights not to allow them to remain. As long as we have gutless governments it will always be so.
If we can't just kick him out because of the law, why do we provide such persons with the best legal teams that 'OUR' money can afford.
If the ordinary man in the street falls foul of the law, he only gets the defence team he can afford.
That is why it is said, in this country there is one law for the rich and another law for the others.
That being said it would seem that Qatada is a very rich man, courtesy of those who cannot afford the 'BEST' themselves.
If the ordinary man in the street falls foul of the law, he only gets the defence team he can afford.
That is why it is said, in this country there is one law for the rich and another law for the others.
That being said it would seem that Qatada is a very rich man, courtesy of those who cannot afford the 'BEST' themselves.
<why do we provide such persons with the best legal teams that 'OUR' money can afford.>
Would the government not also field <the best legal teams that 'OUR' money can afford.>?
The Establishment carries some 'big guns' and isn't averse to beating down <the ordinary man in the street> and <the rich> when they want to.
Perhaps the case went the way it did because of our Laws rather than some magical influence brought by one of the legal teams?
Would the government not also field <the best legal teams that 'OUR' money can afford.>?
The Establishment carries some 'big guns' and isn't averse to beating down <the ordinary man in the street> and <the rich> when they want to.
Perhaps the case went the way it did because of our Laws rather than some magical influence brought by one of the legal teams?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |