Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,124
He is here illegally, so not much he can say tbh
Abu Qatada
- Thread starter the wopster
- Start date
He is here illegally, so not much he can say tbh
Because we've agreed to? Because we keep our word? Because we have to be in some way trustworthy?
Perhaps, though it is linked to our EU membership, the possibility that we could seriously start ignoring decisions in itself could aid changing the convention I guess - leaving it might not be feasible. Its not like countries haven't ignored the court's decisions before... the again the UK doing so could only serve to further encourage others with more serious human rights problems such as Turkey, Russia etc...
Regardless - the idea that we're to be bound by this court above our own supreme court, given that our own supreme court abides by EU human rights legislation, is silly.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
The downside being that people like Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza will abuse that agreement, word and trust.
Of course they will. It's the way things work. We have to make laws and agreements for all of us, knowing that the worst of us will abuse them. If we make laws for the worst of us then the rest of us suffer.
We can't make it a crime to be unpopular, and if we can wrangle the law so it's selectively applied then we're not the free and proper democratic state that we should be.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
It still leaves a nasty taste. Hiding behind legislation as they do makes a mockery of what the act is designed to do and who it was designed to protect.
Why can't we charge the ECHR of aiding and abetting a terrorist and ignore them.
Maybe he hasn't personally committed an act of terrorism (here, that we can prove) but he's a preacher of hate. And that's just as bad.
Maybe he hasn't personally committed an act of terrorism (here, that we can prove) but he's a preacher of hate. And that's just as bad.
To be fair the ECHR did say it was a complicated legal issue. Only the legal profession could make a deadline complicated
It made me laugh on the news this week when a reporter said that the Home Office were concerned that their reputation for competence may be called into question as a result of this shambles. As far as I'm concerned the Home Office haven't had a reputation for competence for quite some time now, didn't they have to get stripped of quite a lot of their powers when the Ministry of Justice was formed?
Associate
- Joined
- 27 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,051
- Location
- Kent
We have a 'Bill of Rights' as such, just like we have a constitution. They're just not codified so people make the mistake of thinking we're somehow lacking because of it.
It's a serious question that is a staple of any common law class. Would it make any difference if everything that makes our (unwritten) constitution was codified ?
Agreed
Probably for the same reason we can't charge his defense lawyer of aiding and abetting.
This was a own goal by the government. May should have kept quite about it all and not trumpeted all about it in the commons then getting egg on her face. Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch!
If she kept quite then if this happened then it would be the same old story of Muslim extremists using the law to stay in the country. If she was successful then she could have patted herself on the back and declare a success.
If she kept quite then if this happened then it would be the same old story of Muslim extremists using the law to stay in the country. If she was successful then she could have patted herself on the back and declare a success.
This one 'idiot' is a moron and a threat to the UK. Our laws should be enough, on their own, to kick the barsteward out of this country for good.
Last edited:
Which legal system, the one the is presided over by a load of people in a foreign country or the law of our land?
They should just accidentally stick him on a plane and be done with the whole matter.