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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21955844

I don't believe this. I just don't believe this.

They laugh in our faces while we make total idiots of ourselves.

Why?
How could the ruling be any different?

You would make a total idiot of yourself by changing the law to allow torture in legal cases.

Stick him on a plane to Jordan and pay the paltry financial penalty the EU would impose.

Remind me again how many millions your British court ordered your British government to pay people it stuck on planes breaking British law.
Forget the EU, its the British system.
If you want to "cure" the problem you must remove the independance of the British judiciary and allow for British law to be broken at will by politicians on whatever whim they have on any particular day.
Not a very nice "cure" is it.

Tribesman has a point, the EU human rights laws may make it damn difficult to deport this man who we have no want or money to keep, but if we withdrew from it, as the Tories want to, I don't like the idea of a Conservative government deciding what human rights are all about.
The law is the law, even if it is an ass, it's still the law.

I wonder how much this process is costing in legal fees though, compared to how much it would cost to keep him under lock and key here... :hmmm:

You miss the main point Oberon, its British law which prevents the deportation.
May is going to appeal again, she has failed to convince 4 british judges that she is following british law, her next step is to try and convince 7 british judges that she is not breaking british law.
I cannot see her winning that arguement unless the jordanian government comes up with a whole new case and a whole new set of evidence...or she changes british law.

You do hit a good point though it would have been far cheaper to throw him in jail upon conviction for the crimes he is alledged to have committed in Britain, and most people seem to agree that the evidence of his guilt there is overwhelming

Stick a fork in him, he's done........hopefully.

It's all trying to score bonus points with the joe public anyway. That's the primary reason they're going to all this trouble to try and get rid of him, to score points for the election.

No Oberon, when the law rides up and down through the instances for years and years and years and years and then starts again, then this is not the rule of any law worth that name - it is a caricature of a law, and the only message it sends is: the law means nothing, since there is always the next instance to oppose the instance before. And so it goes on and on and on. That way, the law makes a fool of itself. Needless to say: it looses in trustworthiness as well.

If the bastard at least would be forced to work, so that the fruits of his labour would be sold and used to pay for the costs he is causing to the community. But not even this. No, the community has to pay for this farce in full.

( I think prison inmates also should be forced to work to produce an income by which they pay for their food, clothing, healthcare and accomodation. It is an absurdity that the community has to pay for the imprisoning of criminals to protect itself from them. )

This case is a great encouragement for bastards coming after this hate-dripping parasite to try to abuse the system like he did. And we will again allow that to happen.

If there is one thing I have learned over the past two or three years, then it is to what degree the very roots of your social systems and states and to what degree the very rules and laws we play by must be put in question. And when one climbs onto the top of that heap of rotting civilization, and looks down to the ground where reality has been left behind, then one must take care not to immediately get befallen by dizziness, that high that heap already is.

Oberon.
The irony is that the impasse they have landed themselves in is a direct result of them trying to score bonus points with joe public.
The sticking point is a change in British law which was intended to stop lengthy appeals against granted deportations.
Unfortunately in this case it backfired as the mechanism to stop refugees overturning a courts decision also means that unless the government can show the judges erred in applying British law in the original hearing they are unable to overturn the courts decision.
Pandering to joe publics calls of kick the immigrants out has left them with a copperfastened case of not being able to kick an immigrant out.

Is that a sermon by Abu Hamza Sky just quoted?:rotfl2: