Home Secretary Theresa May plans to appeal Abu Qatada ruling

Post Reply New Topic

This piece of foreign terrorist effluent should have been booted out of this country over ten years ago. It's frankly unbelievable that it's been allowed to get to this fiasco.

Just boot the criminal son of a b***h out and deal with the consequences later.

So let's be crystal clear about what you are calling for here: You are saying that Government should act in violation of the law, and in direct contravention of a ruling of a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, in order to achieve a desirable goal.

That is profoundly stupid. The merest suggestion that Government should be enable to act outside of the Rule of Law runs directly to heart of the single most important principal that keeps people free from arbitrary interference from Government.

I don't doubt that expelling Abu Qatada is an eminently desirable goal. But that goal must be accomplished within the law. Otherwise we have created a state in which none of us can protect ourselves from tyrrany. The Courts are the last bulwark of freedom, and their reach should never be curtailed.

I don't doubt that the law that has permitted Abu Qatada may be misguided. It may be that protecting people from torture is not something in which our governments should be engaged, and it may be that the law as currently enacted does not act properly to achieve this goal. These are all valid arguments--but the proper place to make these arguments is in Parliament, not in Court.

For better or for worse the law is as it has been established by Parliament. And the Government must live within that.

In this case, yes.

You are aware that a lot of the claims of his lawyers are in fact bogus/don't apply to his situation? That they are simply playing for time?

If the ECHR is a problem when it comes to deporting him, we can leave the Council of Europe if necessary.

Frankly, there is no good reason to keep this man here. He is not a citizen. He is not a simple common criminal. He is a foreign terrorist. He has had appeal after appeal. The general consensus outside his lawyers and the endless legal wrangling is that he should be on the next plane out.

Ah, the one who admitted that hers is the Nasty Party... we can only expect nastiness from her and them.

If you think the Conservatives are 'nasty'... you ain't seen nothing yet.

Vote UKIP!

If he is a criminal, then we should just put him on trial here.

Clearly he won't face a fair trial in Jordan, so the Eurosceptics should stop complaining that bad people have human rights and face up to the fact that we've moved on as a society in the last 4000 years.

The Jordanians have changed their constitution especially for him. Isn't that nice of them?

I'd give him to them, all made up in a stunning dress and done up in pretty bows.

Well, people much more qualified than you and I think he won't face a fair trial, hence the repeated verdicts that we can't deport him.

This is totally off topic and trivial but one thing that strikes me, as a person living in Holland, is the fact that almost all of these british male, conservative politicians (including the current prime minister) are the ugliest stuffiest and most unattractive men I have have ever seen. And that is not all, some of them look downright scruffy as well as unattractive. I wonder if they made the choice to become a conservative out of frustration because of their total lack of charm and sexappeal or something.

Not exactly a political statement but some things just have to be mentioned.

Oh yeah, that Abu Quatada guy should be kicked out of Britain and Europe as soon as possible. What you reap is what you sow. He should finally take the consequences of his own extreme ideologies and actions.

LOL

I think Theresa May looks like she enjoys a good drink, and that is all I have to say about her.

I did not refer to the female concervative politicians, only to the men.

I know. But I have always thought that of Theresa May and felt compelled to say it after you said that about the men.

Then you are an idiot of the first order. You would willingly see the laws torn down to harm one individual, blind to consequence that the law would then be available to protect no one--including you.



As they are entitled to do. If you have a problem with the number and length of his appeals, then the answer is to get Parliament to change the law. So long as he is entitled to a hearing, he is entitled to make whatever case he believes will serve his interests. And the Minister is entitled to respond to whatever case he concocts.

If his claims are a tissue of lies, then the Minister has the tools at her disposal to expose them. If she has failed to do so, then the law is clear--he wins.



But, thanks be to God, the general consensus does not make law. Only Parliament and Judges can do that.