Today I'm angry about.....

[thebish]

Stephen Nolan????? in the daytime????

[William the White]

So we're happy to point to the law that says we can't ship him back to Jordan, but not the one that says we don't have to charge him with anything. Talk about picking and choosing.

Picking and choosing laws you are unhappy with is the very essence of a democracy...

Breaking laws you are unhappy with, as proposed by hoboh, is not...

[Worthy4England]

So we're happy to point to the law that says we can't ship him back to Jordan, but not the one that says we don't have to charge him with anything. Talk about picking and choosing.

here I will admit lack of knowledge... I don't know what the law IS about incarcerating someone without charge - I thought that was the reason he was let out of prison and put under house arrest (though he is now back in prison for some alleged breach...)

can you tell me under what law we could hold him in prison for 10 years without charge - I genuinely don't know. could we imprison someone indefinitely in the country without charging them with anything?

He hasn't been imprisoned for 10 years without charge. He's been imprisoned for smaller periods of time and bailed on occasion under a variety of legal mechanisms.

[Worthy4England]

So we're happy to point to the law that says we can't ship him back to Jordan, but not the one that says we don't have to charge him with anything. Talk about picking and choosing.

Picking and choosing laws you are unhappy with is the very essence of a democracy...

Breaking laws you are unhappy with, as proposed by hoboh, is not...

Good let's see which other ones we like that we can democratically charge the fecker with.

Maybe he'll get bored eventually and take his chances in Jordan.

[thebish]

So we're happy to point to the law that says we can't ship him back to Jordan, but not the one that says we don't have to charge him with anything. Talk about picking and choosing.

here I will admit lack of knowledge... I don't know what the law IS about incarcerating someone without charge - I thought that was the reason he was let out of prison and put under house arrest (though he is now back in prison for some alleged breach...)

can you tell me under what law we could hold him in prison for 10 years without charge - I genuinely don't know. could we imprison someone indefinitely in the country without charging them with anything?

He hasn't been imprisoned for 10 years without charge. He's been imprisoned for smaller periods of time and bailed on occasion under a variety of legal mechanisms.

ok - 10 yrs was a ball-park, but not far off.

he has been imprisoned from oct2002-May2008 with a break of 5months in 2005 when he was out on bail with strict conditions.

he was out on bail from may-nov2008 and then back in prison until 2012. he had feb-april 2012 out on bail.

then he was back in prison until november 2012

from Oct 2002 until now - he has not been in prison for about 18months - all of the rest of the time he has been in prison without charge. and the times he has NOT been imprisoned he has been effectively imprisoned with very strict house-arrest type conditions.

I still don't know under what legislation we have managed to do that (maybe we haven't as it seems the govt has lost several legal battles and been forced to release him...)

and my question remains - why do we not simply put him on trial here?

[Worthy4England]

So we're happy to point to the law that says we can't ship him back to Jordan, but not the one that says we don't have to charge him with anything. Talk about picking and choosing.

here I will admit lack of knowledge... I don't know what the law IS about incarcerating someone without charge - I thought that was the reason he was let out of prison and put under house arrest (though he is now back in prison for some alleged breach...)

can you tell me under what law we could hold him in prison for 10 years without charge - I genuinely don't know. could we imprison someone indefinitely in the country without charging them with anything?

He hasn't been imprisoned for 10 years without charge. He's been imprisoned for smaller periods of time and bailed on occasion under a variety of legal mechanisms.

ok - 10 yrs was a ball-park, but not far off.

he has been imprisoned from oct2002-May2008 with a break of 5months in 2005 when he was out on bail with strict conditions.

he was out on bail from may-nov2008 and then back in prison until 2012. he had feb-april 2012 out on bail.

then he was back in prison until november 2012

from Oct 2002 until now - he has not been in prison for about 18months - all of the rest of the time he has been in prison without charge. and the times he has NOT been imprisoned he has been effectively imprisoned with very strict house-arrest type conditions.

I still don't know under what legislation we have managed to do that (maybe we haven't as it seems the govt has lost several legal battles and been forced to release him...)

and my question remains - why do we not simply put him on trial here?

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

[thebish]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

[Worthy4England]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

If we can't, then we should trump up a few special charges. When they run out I guess we'll have little choice left, other to invent some new ones.

[thebish]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

If we can't, then we should trump up a few special charges. When they run out I guess we'll have little choice left, other to invent some new ones.

it sounds like we are kind of in agreement - except - if he is such bad baddy badman and it is so blindingly obvious - then why the need to "trump" up charges? why not just charge him with what he is actually supposed to have done wrong?

[Worthy4England]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

If we can't, then we should trump up a few special charges. When they run out I guess we'll have little choice left, other to invent some new ones.

it sounds like we are kind of in agreement - except - if he is such bad baddy badman and it is so blindingly obvious - then why the need to "trump" up charges? why not just charge him with what he is actually supposed to have done wrong?

No point. Like I say, he's locked up anyhow.

[BWFC_Insane]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

If we can't, then we should trump up a few special charges. When they run out I guess we'll have little choice left, other to invent some new ones.

it sounds like we are kind of in agreement - except - if he is such bad baddy badman and it is so blindingly obvious - then why the need to "trump" up charges? why not just charge him with what he is actually supposed to have done wrong?

No point. Like I say, he's locked up anyhow.

The question being, who decides who should be locked up and who shouldn't?

[Worthy4England]

The Courts of course, silly.

We've not even tried the Mental Health Act yet. Lots of possibilities left.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Courts of course, silly.

We've not even tried the Mental Health Act yet. Lots of possibilities left.

But the courts haven't decided because he's not been charged with anything.

Ultimately someone has to decide who an application for detention should be made for and who it shouldn't .

That's not the courts.

And whilst the may have to approve the applications via a legal mechanism, essentially someone is making the initial decision.

Not sure that is right in a so called 'free society'.

[Worthy4England]

The Courts of course, silly.

We've not even tried the Mental Health Act yet. Lots of possibilities left.

But the courts haven't decided because he's not been charged with anything.

Ultimately someone has to decide who an application for detention should be made for and who it shouldn't .

That's not the courts.

And whilst the may have to approve the applications via a legal mechanism, essentially someone is making the initial decision.

Not sure that is right in a so called 'free society'.

I'm in the "oh well" camp on that point.

[BWFC_Insane]

The Courts of course, silly.

We've not even tried the Mental Health Act yet. Lots of possibilities left.

But the courts haven't decided because he's not been charged with anything.

Ultimately someone has to decide who an application for detention should be made for and who it shouldn't .

That's not the courts.

And whilst the may have to approve the applications via a legal mechanism, essentially someone is making the initial decision.

Not sure that is right in a so called 'free society'.

I'm in the "oh well" camp on that point.

That may be because you agree in this particular case.

But these sorts of powers can be used for things you may well not agree with.

It's a dangerous precedent to set. Very very dangerous.

[Worthy4England]

The Courts of course, silly.

We've not even tried the Mental Health Act yet. Lots of possibilities left.

But the courts haven't decided because he's not been charged with anything.

Ultimately someone has to decide who an application for detention should be made for and who it shouldn't .

That's not the courts.

And whilst the may have to approve the applications via a legal mechanism, essentially someone is making the initial decision.

Not sure that is right in a so called 'free society'.

I'm in the "oh well" camp on that point.

That may be because you agree in this particular case.

But these sorts of powers can be used for things you may well not agree with.

It's a dangerous precedent to set. Very very dangerous.

I can live with this level of danger...

[as]

People have been sent down for posting offensive tweets

JSL

[Bruce Rioja]

People have been sent down for posting offensive tweets

JSL

What a magnificent beard he has!

[bobo the clown]

OK, let's get pissed at this lot ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21993724" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

£900 a pop ! 0.007% usage ... and they are whinging.

F'kem.

[Il Pirate]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

I think it's still possible under certain terms of the mental health act, not sure if it can be applied to (alleged) terrorists though.........