Joined: Mar 05 2007 Posts: 13190 Location: Hedon (sometimes), sometimes Premier Inn's
Kosh wrote:Doubt away, but I think you're mistaken. The alternative is basically the end of the rule of law. No person, or institution, or Government must ever be allowed to simply ignore the law if they find it convenient to do so.
Public opinion is not, and never should be, a factor when ruling on matters of law.
And this has never happened
There are a lot of instances where bad laws have been broken all over the world, in fact would women have the vote, trades unions been formed had the law of the land not been broken. Did you want miners jailed for secondary picketing, this was against the law ( a bad one, but still the law). How many laws were broken in South Africa to bring about the eventual end to apartheid.
Your statement is a bit too simplistic.
'when my life is over, the thing which will have given me greatest pride is that I was first to plunge into the sea, swimming freely underwater without any connection to the terrestrial world'
Yves Le Prieur, the real inventor of the aqualung
Last edited by rover49 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are a lot of instances where bad laws have been broken all over the world, in fact would women have the vote, trades unions been formed had the law of the land not been broken. Did you want miners jailed for secondary picketing, this was against the law ( a bad one, but still the law). How many laws were broken in South Africa to bring about the eventual end to apartheid.
Your statement is a bit too simplistic.
The courts interpret the law, they don't put the statutes in place. Politicians can take public opinion into account when they make a law but public opinion should have no place in judges' decisions.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
rover49 wrote:And this has never happened
There are a lot of instances where bad laws have been broken all over the world, in fact would women have the vote, trades unions been formed had the law of the land not been broken. Did you want miners jailed for secondary picketing, this was against the law ( a bad one, but still the law). How many laws were broken in South Africa to bring about the eventual end to apartheid.
Your statement is a bit too simplistic.
I am afraid it is you with the simplistic view. There is no comparison with what went on with South Africa etc and the a judge upholding the law in this country in this case. The analogies you give do not hold. The fact Abu Qatada is a nasty bit of work everyone wants thrown out of the country is no reason to rip the law up that prevents it happening. That would remove the protection the law gives to people who are nothing like Abu Qatada who are in the same position where our courts have concluded that they face torture or unfair trials as a result of torture if extradited. You can't just throw him out without removing the protection the law gives to the deserving cases.
The best solution is a simple one whereby the government can convince the court with the law as it stands that he can be extradited. If it can't then it doesn't mean the law is wrong.
Last league derby at Central Park 5/9/1999: Wigan 28 St. Helens 20 Last league derby at Knowsley Road 2/4/2010: St. Helens 10 Wigan 18
rover49 wrote:I doubt it would come to that. The problem is that the courts are out of touch with public opinion on this matter, the Home Secretary has done everything she can to gain assurances from Jordan that they will not use 'unsavoury' evidence in his trial, but the judges won't accept this and allow him to stay costing us millions to keep him 'safe' and feed, cloth and house him and his family, while he does his damnedest to cause as much trouble as he can.
Enough is enough, we have a duty to care for 'decent' people who come he for help, but this scumbag and other terrorists and criminals use our weak systems to abuse what was set up to protect those in genuine need of help, not the likes of Qatadar who deserves all he gets. Get rid of him.
My fear is that we will end up with a reaction against all who seek help, rather than those who deserve to be booted out.
Your problem is who decides who is decent and who is a scumbag?
Extra-judicial deportation to countries and regimes known to torture, known to kill, because people are saying unpopular things arent the actions of a good society. To deport Abu Qatada, as is, would simply show our society to be as bad as what we are accusing him of being.
There is a chance, whether you believe it to be true or not, there is a chance that Abu Qatada isn’t as bad as being made out, that he shouldn’t be deported, and if not him then there is a chance that the law protecting him, is also protecting someone who is ‘innocent’. Ripping up the law which may be protecting Abu Qatada would also be ripping up the law protecting the innocent.
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
I'm not certain how guaranteeing him a fair trial on the basis of some rapidly drawn up agreement gets round the fact that some of the evidence that would be used against him was obtained in the past, allegedly by using torture (which is my understanding of why it has fallen down previously). Are the Jordanians saying that they'll forget all about that and obtain new evidence for a new trial? Are they that keen to get him back?
Qatada is an out and out scumbag, but as many have pointed out, we have to abide by the rule of law and if he can't be deported lawfully, he can't be deported.
I was half hoping that the UK would temporarily withdraw from the ECHR to achieve their aim, which, while it smacks of an utterly desperate government, would at least have given me the opportunity to abuse the human rights of some coalition politicians with virtual impunity.
I'm not certain how guaranteeing him a fair trial on the basis of some rapidly drawn up agreement gets round the fact that some of the evidence that would be used against him was obtained in the past, allegedly by using torture (which is my understanding of why it has fallen down previously). Are the Jordanians saying that they'll forget all about that and obtain new evidence for a new trial? Are they that keen to get him back?
Qatada is an out and out scumbag, but as many have pointed out, we have to abide by the rule of law and if he can't be deported lawfully, he can't be deported.
I was half hoping that the UK would temporarily withdraw from the ECHR to achieve their aim, which, while it smacks of an utterly desperate government, would at least have given me the opportunity to abuse the human rights of some coalition politicians with virtual impunity.
Joined: Mar 05 2007 Posts: 13190 Location: Hedon (sometimes), sometimes Premier Inn's
World of Redboy wrote:They should just shoot him, then get some bogus organisation to take responsibily. Let his nutter followers have a demonstration over his death, infiltrate it with a couple of plants, let them kick off with a bit of violence, allowing the police to wade in, give them a good kicking before locking them up.
Good idea, stick a nice Geranium and a Begonia in amongst them while they are distracted burning effigies of May
'when my life is over, the thing which will have given me greatest pride is that I was first to plunge into the sea, swimming freely underwater without any connection to the terrestrial world'
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
