- censored -

- censored -

-rant-
-rant-

Mindless rant.

(copy and past from an older post):

You are confusing the European Court of Human Rights with the European Court of Justice!

WTH has the EU to do with the Abu Qatada case?

The European Court of Human Rights (Strassbourg) was established under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 as a consequence of WW II on initiative by Britain. The convention is adopted by the so-called Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is distinct from the EU which has 27 member states and consists of 47 member states , such as Russia, Ukraine and Turkey. Russia e.g. is not a member of the EU, right?

Some EU member states are members of the Council of Europe but not all members of the Council of Europe are EU members.

The European Court of Justice (Luxembourg City) is an EU institution.

The European Court of Justice does not deal with Criminal law cases because Criminal law belongs to the national law systems and not to the EU law system, simple as that. There is no EU criminal law.

So you could do all you want, leave the EU,arrest the EU representatives and the EU court's judges and even shoot them, this is pointless in the context of the Abu Quatada case.

The European Court of Human Rights would still be there to make decisions that are binding because your country is a member of the Council of Europe and signed the European Charta of Human Rights.

You would have to leave the Council of Europe instead! (no EU institution)
[/QUote]

EU, you don't like it. I think I understood that. But why oh why?

In before yet another anarcho-capitalist rant.

Why oh why indeed?:03:
This current appeal just happens to be the British government going to British courts to try and overturn a decision which was made in British courts by British judges in accordance with British law.
At this stage it not only has nothing to do with the EU, it has nothing to do with the European court of human rights either.

Abu Qatada deportation ban can be lifted, judges told:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21732958

Largely based on....you guessed it:

The Judgement:

http://www.bailii.org/images/logos/echr_head.png

CASE OF OTHMAN (ABU QATADA) v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/56.html

Hopefully the light at the end of the tunnel is in sight and the UK can be rid of this individual.

It bothers me not one jot what his eventual outcome will be but he has bled the British system for far too long now.

Anyone like to offer him a safe haven then?

I would send him to have a good German beer with Skaybird:haha:.

"Told" by the lawyers appealing against the judges decision.

Is that the same James Eadie QC who yesterday agreed the use of torture in Jordan was "endemic and systematic" throughout the state justice system?:hmmm:

Look I really think it is quite simple...the British government are trying their best to rid the country and British taxpayers of this disgraceful individual who has nothing but contempt for the very country he is leeching from and in so doing has preached anti British rhetoric to anyone prepared to listen.

He is considered an undesireable and whilst not being a supporter or follower of the present government I do admit to admiring the way they are keeping within the parameters of the British judicial system, possibly a lot more than some other countries would I suspect.

Despite your comments above it is a fact the EU and the court of human rights are directly involved in the position Britain currently finds itself in.

The links are up there for anyone to read up on and without said interference I'm of the personal opinion said individual would no longer be in receipt of or the cause of copious amounts of expenditure of British taxpayers money and would have been away from our shores a long time ago.

Maybe you could get a 2 for the price of one deals Jim, send him and Assange to Jordan at the same time!

Like I said "at this stage", it has nothing at all to do with the EU.
And at other stages the european court which is not the EU becomes involved.
The center of the problem is British law and silly attempts the past two governments have made to circumvent British law.

You could always change the British laws, but ask yourself this.
Do you really want to change at a fundamental level your laws because of one relatively insignificant dickhead from palestine?

Double edged, if his assets were not frozen by the state he would be above the threshold for benefit payments and he wouldn't be getting the same legal aid.

The simple solution is to put him on trial and convict him of the crimes he has committed in Britain, then if he is still alive after his prison term deport him on release.

Don't build my hopes up :)

Whichever and either way....stop the interference from the EU (and God only knows what your problem is in failing to accept/recognise a link to a legal judgement which I have evidenced to have had a serious bearing on the current legal position) and get the bugga off British sovereign territory.


Or as I said earlier...give the bugga sanctuary in your country....simple as.

Your evidence is to the council not the EU as Dan already pointed out. The ruling from that court relates to British law and British courts.

Its your mess, your government made it, don't try and palm it off on other countries.
Come to think of it Jordan just happens to be a mess your country created too.:03:

BTW as you seem concerned as to the cost this is putting on the British taxpayer which you put as half a million+.
As a matter of comparison, in the 10 years this farce has been running how many millions of your tax payers money(not including legal costs and fees) has your government paid out in compensation to people it deported to dodgy regimes.
If you want you can add the compensation from those cases where the British state was the one doing the torturing.
I can understand your anger at the costs Qatada is running up, but you must agree they are really a drop in the ocean if you look at the bigger picture