Today I'm angry about.....

[Hoboh]

O M G!!!

My point still stays, in the interests of protecting the country the government should hold sway over the courts.

For crying out loud If a nuke was headed over here would they need the courts permission to fire back and commit mass murder on the attackers? I really think not!

[truewhite15]

O M G!!!

My point still stays, in the interests of protecting the country the government should hold sway over the courts.

For crying out loud If a nuke was headed over here would they need the courts permission to fire back and commit mass murder on the attackers? I really think not!

Aye, cos...that's the same as what you're on about.

[seanworth]

O M G!!!

My point still stays, in the interests of protecting the country the government should hold sway over the courts.

For crying out loud If a nuke was headed over here would they need the courts permission to fire back and commit mass murder on the attackers? I really think not!

O M G? Come on Hoboh, that came across like a 13 girl whose favourite contender got the boot off of X Factor. While our politics might differ I do expect better than that from you.

[Hoboh]

O M G!!!

My point still stays, in the interests of protecting the country the government should hold sway over the courts.

For crying out loud If a nuke was headed over here would they need the courts permission to fire back and commit mass murder on the attackers? I really think not!

Aye, cos...that's the same as what you're on about.

Silly boy! Both are a threat to the security and well being of the country and it's citizens. This human rights malarkey is well out of order, it would be real interesting if someone recruited or influenced by Qatada attacked one of these judges, be a different ball game then I suspect.

Sorry Sean, I was trying not to use profanity

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It seems obvious to me that he cannot be deported within our current legal arrangements. Unsurprisingly, our judges are not convinced by 'assurances' from a regime that does routinely use torture. Given that this is so, of course there's nowhere else he can be sent - you can't just randomly and unilaterally scatter your undesirables around the world for other countries to deal with.

Of course this does some raise some fundamental questions about the nature of asylum and its place in our arrangements now that we have a settled peace with our international neighbours. It does seem a bit random to insist on certain standards when someone happens to have made it onto your soil with a fake passport, but not to take any action the rest of the time against countries whose standards we disagree with. Of course this creates an incentive to make it here. The dividing line is that some are proud of this and some aren't. For me he should have been told to sod off back to his uncivilised country from the start.

[bobo the clown]

It seems obvious to me that he cannot be deported within our current legal arrangements. Unsurprisingly, our judges are not convinced by 'assurances' from a regime that does routinely use torture. Given that this is so, of course there's nowhere else he can be sent - you can't just randomly and unilaterally scatter your undesirables around the world for other countries to deal with.

Of course this does some raise some fundamental questions about the nature of asylum and its place in our arrangements now that we have a settled peace with our international neighbours. It does seem a bit random to insist on certain standards when someone happens to have made it onto your soil with a fake passport, but not to take any action the rest of the time against countries whose standards we disagree with. Of course this creates an incentive to make it here. The dividing line is that some are proud of this and some aren't. For me he should have been told to sod off back to his uncivilised country from the start.

You got there with that last sentence.

& given that he wasn't we should be allowed to say it now & he shouldn't have access to our funds to live off, or defend himself with.

... & so goes for all the same-minded Abu's out there.

[Worthy4England]

It seems obvious to me that he cannot be deported within our current legal arrangements. Unsurprisingly, our judges are not convinced by 'assurances' from a regime that does routinely use torture. Given that this is so, of course there's nowhere else he can be sent - you can't just randomly and unilaterally scatter your undesirables around the world for other countries to deal with.

Of course this does some raise some fundamental questions about the nature of asylum and its place in our arrangements now that we have a settled peace with our international neighbours. It does seem a bit random to insist on certain standards when someone happens to have made it onto your soil with a fake passport, but not to take any action the rest of the time against countries whose standards we disagree with. Of course this creates an incentive to make it here. The dividing line is that some are proud of this and some aren't. For me he should have been told to sod off back to his uncivilised country from the start.

You got there with that last sentence.

& given that he wasn't we should be allowed to say it now & he shouldn't have access to our funds to live off, or defend himself with.

... & so goes for all the same-minded Abu's out there.

I though perhaps PB might have spent too long in Pru's company yesterday, Figured he was going all Shami Chakrabarti on us, until the last sentence.

[thebish]

O M G!!!

My point still stays, in the interests of protecting the country the government should hold sway over the courts.

For crying out loud If a nuke was headed over here would they need the courts permission to fire back and commit mass murder on the attackers? I really think not!

Aye, cos...that's the same as what you're on about.

Silly boy! Both are a threat to the security and well being of the country and it's citizens.

hmmmm... yet you refuse to tell us how Abu Qatada is a "threat to the security and well being of our country and its citizens".

[Worthy4England]

O M G!!!

My point still stays, in the interests of protecting the country the government should hold sway over the courts.

For crying out loud If a nuke was headed over here would they need the courts permission to fire back and commit mass murder on the attackers? I really think not!

Aye, cos...that's the same as what you're on about.

Silly boy! Both are a threat to the security and well being of the country and it's citizens.

hmmmm... yet you refuse to tell us how Abu Qatada is a "threat to the security and well being of our country and its citizens".

He probably isn't, whilst he's locked up.

I'm happy enough that his appearance on the UN Al-Quaeda Sanctions list, shows that some folk with more info than I have, think there's enough reason to think he's a threat. He always has the choice to feck off back to where he came from on his forged papers if he doesn't like it here.

[thebish]

He probably isn't, whilst he's locked up.

I'm happy enough that his appearance on the UN Al-Quaeda Sanctions list, shows that some folk with more info than I have, think there's enough reason to think he's a threat. He always has the choice to feck off back to where he came from on his forged papers if he doesn't like it here.

someone said we'd be better sending him to a country that would welcome him and not torture him.. I forget who that was... IF he is a terrorist mastermind - then we're a whole lot safer having him here and notorious and monitored... also - given his notoriety - I'm skeptical that a terrorist cell would be involving him in their plans...

as Mummy has noted - our own laws and treaties we have signed up to don't allow us to extradite him to Jordon - that's how it is... if he is guilty of hate-crimes in this country or inciting violence or plotting terrorism - as has been widely reported - then we have the laws to put him on trial here. I don't know why we don't.

[Worthy4England]

He probably isn't, whilst he's locked up.

I'm happy enough that his appearance on the UN Al-Quaeda Sanctions list, shows that some folk with more info than I have, think there's enough reason to think he's a threat. He always has the choice to feck off back to where he came from on his forged papers if he doesn't like it here.

someone said we'd be better sending him to a country that would welcome him and not torture him.. I forget who that was... IF he is a terrorist mastermind - then we're a whole lot safer having him here and notorious and monitored... also - given his notoriety - I'm skeptical that a terrorist cell would be involving him in their plans...

as Mummy has noted - our own laws and treaties we have signed up to don't allow us to extradite him to Jordon - that's how it is... if he is guilty of hate-crimes in this country or inciting violence or plotting terrorism - as has been widely reported - then we have the laws to put him on trial here. I don't know why we don't.

First part is where you talk about his notoriety precluding his involvement. There's been plenty of notorious terrorists closely involved in terrorist cells. Bin Laden wasn'r exactly a shrinking violet. So I don't agree this would preclude his involvement.

I didn't say we should send him back. I said he could choose to go back if he doesn't like it here.

I'm not unhappy with him being here and incarcerated. Probably worth the money.

[thebish]

First part is where you talk about his notoriety precluding his involvement. There's been plenty of notorious terrorists closely involved in terrorist cells. Bin Laden wasn'r exactly a shrinking violet. So I don't agree this would preclude his involvement.

I didn't say we should send him back. I said he could choose to go back if he doesn't like it here.

I'm not unhappy with him being here and incarcerated. Probably worth the money.

your suggestion of Bin Laden helps my point... he was in a friendly country where he was not under surveillance and well hidden. that's just about the opposite of qatada's situation here.

I know YOU didn't say we should send him back - you joined in a conversation where others had said that and i was making a general point to the whole debate - not a specific response to you (despite quoting you!)

on your last paragraph we are in total agreement IF we actually convict him of summat. I really don't see why we don't simply put him on trial.

[William the White]

First part is where you talk about his notoriety precluding his involvement. There's been plenty of notorious terrorists closely involved in terrorist cells. Bin Laden wasn'r exactly a shrinking violet. So I don't agree this would preclude his involvement.

I didn't say we should send him back. I said he could choose to go back if he doesn't like it here.

I'm not unhappy with him being here and incarcerated. Probably worth the money.

your suggestion of Bin Laden helps my point... he was in a friendly country where he was not under surveillance and well hidden. that's just about the opposite of qatada's situation here.

I know YOU didn't say we should send him back - you joined in a conversation where others had said that and i was making a general point to the whole debate - not a specific response to you (despite quoting you!)

on your last paragraph we are in total agreement IF we actually convict him of summat. I really don't see why we don't simply put him on trial.

Just to say - I'm unhappy with him being incarcerated without charge or trial and the more than ten year cat and mouse game that has been played with him...

I don't think there's any evidence that he has been involved in a material way with acts of terror, though he has certainly helped provide 'spiritual' and 'religious' support for acts of terror and for al Qaeda... but long ago he split ideologically with al Qaeda (don't know the details - it's quite possible he considered them too liberal). In fact there were persistent rumours in the 1990s that he'd become an informer on his former jihadists.

I think he's a jihadist fanatic and propagandist. In certain circumstances I can see the case for prosecution - if he becomes an advocate for terror in a way that may lead to acts of violence, particularly in this country. We already have laws against that - prosecute him using them if there's evidence.

[thebish]

First part is where you talk about his notoriety precluding his involvement. There's been plenty of notorious terrorists closely involved in terrorist cells. Bin Laden wasn'r exactly a shrinking violet. So I don't agree this would preclude his involvement.

I didn't say we should send him back. I said he could choose to go back if he doesn't like it here.

I'm not unhappy with him being here and incarcerated. Probably worth the money.

your suggestion of Bin Laden helps my point... he was in a friendly country where he was not under surveillance and well hidden. that's just about the opposite of qatada's situation here.

I know YOU didn't say we should send him back - you joined in a conversation where others had said that and i was making a general point to the whole debate - not a specific response to you (despite quoting you!)

on your last paragraph we are in total agreement IF we actually convict him of summat. I really don't see why we don't simply put him on trial.

Just to say - I'm unhappy with him being incarcerated without charge or trial and the more than ten year cat and mouse game that has been played with him...

indeed - me too - which is why I added the IF clause...

I forget how long Labour extended the detention without trial laws to on the back of 9-11 - but it was well short of 10yrs IIRC!! but then again - countless people were held for as long and longer (and still are) at Guantanamo without trial or even charge...

reminds me a tiny tiny bit of the end of animal farm.... "they couldn't tell the difference"... (yes - that's hyperbole - but is incarceration without charge or trial really one of the fundamental democratic freedoms that we are trying to teach the world?)

Qatada is now merely a political pawn to make whoever finally deports him - Theresa is desperately hoping it will be her - a tough-guy hero... but labour are hoping this every bit as much as the tories - and so is Nick Clegg...

[William the White]

First part is where you talk about his notoriety precluding his involvement. There's been plenty of notorious terrorists closely involved in terrorist cells. Bin Laden wasn'r exactly a shrinking violet. So I don't agree this would preclude his involvement.

I didn't say we should send him back. I said he could choose to go back if he doesn't like it here.

I'm not unhappy with him being here and incarcerated. Probably worth the money.

your suggestion of Bin Laden helps my point... he was in a friendly country where he was not under surveillance and well hidden. that's just about the opposite of qatada's situation here.

I know YOU didn't say we should send him back - you joined in a conversation where others had said that and i was making a general point to the whole debate - not a specific response to you (despite quoting you!)

on your last paragraph we are in total agreement IF we actually convict him of summat. I really don't see why we don't simply put him on trial.

Just to say - I'm unhappy with him being incarcerated without charge or trial and the more than ten year cat and mouse game that has been played with him...

indeed - me too - which is why I added the IF clause...

I forget how long Labour extended the detention without trial laws to on the back of 9-11 - but it was well short of 10yrs IIRC!! but then again - countless people were held for as long and longer (and still are) at Guantanamo without trial or even charge...

reminds me a tiny tiny bit of the end of animal farm.... "they couldn't tell the difference"... (yes - that's hyperbole - but is incarceration without charge or trial really one of the fundamental democratic freedoms that we are trying to teach the world?)

Qatada is now merely a political pawn to make whoever finally deports him - Theresa is desperately hoping it will be her - a tough-guy hero... but labour are hoping this every bit as much as the tories - and so is Nick Clegg...

I agree, the bish, was simply seeking to reinforce your position... Have I got it right that your church is one of the four protesting today about the enforced poverty policy the Eton boys are inflicting on the lower orders?

They could almost be Christians...

[thebish]

I agree, the bish, was simply seeking to reinforce your position... Have I got it right that your church is one of the four protesting today about the enforced poverty policy the Eton boys are inflicting on the lower orders?

They could almost be Christians...

yes - you are... we operate a Joint Public Issues Team with the Baptists and Methodists... usually nobody notices and only the voice of the CofE or the catholics - or looney toones conservative evangelicals is every heard...

so we were all a bit shocked to hear it on the national news through the day...

http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/

[Bruce Rioja]

Have I got it right that your church is one of the four protesting today about the enforced poverty policy the Eton boys are inflicting on the lower orders?

Are the Eton boys a church?

[William the White]

Have I got it right that your church is one of the four protesting today about the enforced poverty policy the Eton boys are inflicting on the lower orders?

Are the Eton boys a church?

You'd have to ask them, Bruce... Can't see them telling you the truth though...

[Worthy4England]

First part is where you talk about his notoriety precluding his involvement. There's been plenty of notorious terrorists closely involved in terrorist cells. Bin Laden wasn'r exactly a shrinking violet. So I don't agree this would preclude his involvement.

I didn't say we should send him back. I said he could choose to go back if he doesn't like it here.

I'm not unhappy with him being here and incarcerated. Probably worth the money.

your suggestion of Bin Laden helps my point... he was in a friendly country where he was not under surveillance and well hidden. that's just about the opposite of qatada's situation here.

I know YOU didn't say we should send him back - you joined in a conversation where others had said that and i was making a general point to the whole debate - not a specific response to you (despite quoting you!)

on your last paragraph we are in total agreement IF we actually convict him of summat. I really don't see why we don't simply put him on trial.

Just to say - I'm unhappy with him being incarcerated without charge or trial and the more than ten year cat and mouse game that has been played with him...

indeed - me too - which is why I added the IF clause...

I forget how long Labour extended the detention without trial laws to on the back of 9-11 - but it was well short of 10yrs IIRC!! but then again - countless people were held for as long and longer (and still are) at Guantanamo without trial or even charge...

reminds me a tiny tiny bit of the end of animal farm.... "they couldn't tell the difference"... (yes - that's hyperbole - but is incarceration without charge or trial really one of the fundamental democratic freedoms that we are trying to teach the world?)

Qatada is now merely a political pawn to make whoever finally deports him - Theresa is desperately hoping it will be her - a tough-guy hero... but labour are hoping this every bit as much as the tories - and so is Nick Clegg...

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.

[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?