By Hook or by.....

20 Apr 2012

Quote by HnS
Whilst I have no love for Abu Hamza or his followers,I do often find the revelling in others misfortune both here and in the less salubrious areas of our press equally repugnant ... do we have so little trust in OUR judicial system that we need to send others abroad for trial ??

Did he commit an offence in the UK in respect of which he can be tried in the UK or were his alleged offences committed elsewhere?
The hook's indictments are raised in the USA AFAIK so how can he be tried in the UK?
He is being tried and has been tried several times in this country ...it's about time we let a court have a go
Oh and those extradition hearing how do they work then ??
Extradition, ain't that a slower version of rendition ?
dunno

It often looks like it

20 Apr 2012

Chop his tail off! wink

21 Apr 2012

Quote by Bluefish2009
Chop his tail off!

i think he`s been neutered blue otherwise he would have ran off dunno

21 Apr 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Whilst I have no love for Abu Hamza or his followers,I do often find the revelling in others misfortune both here and in the less salubrious areas of our press equally repugnant ... do we have so little trust in OUR judicial system that we need to send others abroad for trial ??

Yes I do doubt the system here, we try to fight terrorism under the cricket rules "so to speak" and why should we shell out more money for the trial, we have spent enough on him already, then if found guilty the cost of his imprisonement, let Jordan have the bill, if I really had my way he would have an accident in custody like his mentor Bin Laden and then sit and smile at everyone who accused us of foul play. Some might say that would be breaking the law, just like he broke our laws I say.

21 Apr 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Whilst I have no love for Abu Hamza or his followers,I do often find the revelling in others misfortune both here and in the less salubrious areas of our press equally repugnant ... do we have so little trust in OUR judicial system that we need to send others abroad for trial ??

Yes I do doubt the system here, we try to fight terrorism under the cricket rules "so to speak" and why should we shell out more money for the trial, we have spent enough on him already, then if found guilty the cost of his imprisonement, let Jordan have the bill, if I really had my way he would have an accident in custody like his mentor Bin Laden and then sit and smile at everyone who accused us of foul play. Some might say that would be breaking the law, just like he broke our laws I say.
Just like in the good old days when the innocent were beaten into a confession.
Glad those days have gone
Dave_Notts

22 Apr 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts
Just like in the good old days when the innocent were beaten into a confession.
Glad those days have gone
Dave_Notts

a sprout to catch a mackerel.:thumbup:

23 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
my personal opinion is sack may and employ Nicolas Sarkozy in her place.
no need for the European court or human rights then :haha:

He might be available after the first round of the Presidential Elections on Sunday wink

did you know something that the rest of us did not GNV? lol

i know very little of french politics but sarkozy did seem a bit more of a knob than many in the past have.
One in five voters backed National Front candidate Marine Le Pen, was that a suprise to you personally GNV and was it a big suprise in france?

24 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Just like in the good old days when the innocent were beaten into a confession.
Glad those days have gone
Dave_Notts

a sprout to catch a mackerel.:thumbup:
Well that could happen if his guilt was not so well documented, after all his crime here is inciting Muslims to take up arms against British Soliers amongst other things, he did nothing to cover up what he preached and did everything he could to incite killing as loudly and as openly as possible.

24 Apr 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Well that could happen if his guilt was not so well documented, after all his crime here is inciting Muslims to take up arms against British Soliers amongst other things, he did nothing to cover up what he preached and did everything he could to incite killing as loudly and as openly as possible.

obviously his incitment to violence and hate was not loud enough mids, as far as the court of human rights is concerned.
i remember seeing his " disciples " outside frindsbury mosque on a friday afternoon, listening to his rantings of hate against westerners and police officers standing by doing nothing, after they had obviously been given there orders to make no arrests from there left wing commissioner terrified of upsetting any of these muslims on our streets.
you sow what you reap mids. even now after all we know and all we have seen, still we allow extremists onto our streets to incite hatred. remember the burning of the poppy last year as an example? it matters not that there was only a handful of muslims doing it, it is the fact that any body was allowed to do something so offensive on that day of all days. and all because we are fearful of not letting peeple have there right to demonstrate.
free speech for some mids but certainly not all.:notes:

24 Apr 2012

Which is exactly why I say "stuff the european or world opinion, stuff the claims for compensation for sending him to Jordan, stuff the cries of that's not allowed" just send him and tell the world "we wanted to do it so we did it" like other countries do with thier home affairs, let thim impose economic sanctions if they want, though I doubt they will they will just send letters of disaproval, they wont go to war for him or risk thier trading abilities with the UK or kick us out of the EU and lose our money input.

24 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
did you know something that the rest of us did not GNV?

i know very little of french politics but sarkozy did seem a bit more of a knob than many in the past have.
One in five voters backed National Front candidate Marine Le Pen, was that a suprise to you personally GNV and was it a big suprise in france?

The lack of accurate reporting in the UK never surprises me star.
To say that NS was 'hammered' in the first round is totally untrue. The British press also incorrectly reported that no other incumbent President has been 'beaten' in the first round.
The French Presidential elections seem, to some outsiders, quite complex but in reality are quite simple. Unless a candidate gains more than 50% of the vote in the first round, the two candidates who poll the most go through into a second round run-off. In such a case, there is no 'winner' in the first round as such; two candidates go through to face each other head to head and the votes from the first round now count for nothing.
So, to say that NS was 'hammered' is completely off the wall. The French often vote 'tactically' in the first round just to let the Establishment know that the voter is 'king' and to remind them that their tenure in the Élysée Palace is given by the people for the people.
Indeed, there was not much percentage difference between the top 3 candidates but France has learnt her lesson. Marine Le Pen's father (FN) managed to outstrip the PS candidate Jospin in to third place in 2002 leaving Le Pen and Chirac in the run off. Chirac won of course; The French have no stomach for racism and the far right radicals.
In the following election (2007), Le Pen was left in fourth place but a lack lustre PS was overhauled by Nicolas Sarkozy with bright new ideals which, sadly have not come to fruition.
Am I surprised that Marine Le Pen, Jean-Marie's very capable daughter and now President of the FN did so well this time round?
Not at all.
She has tempered her party's policies to present a more acceptable face to the extreme right and whilst her aspirations for the Presidency this time round have faltered, she has in fact increased her share of the vote over what her father achieved in 2002 to be placed in the run-off and was so very close to the two leading contenders so as to cause them to modify their campaigns in order to hold her off.
She has a significant power base in the south of France. She has said that she will not direct her supporters as to who to follow in the run-off - unlike Melenchon, the far left communist supported candidate who is telling his supporters to vote for Hollande.
NS is centre right and can probably count on a significant portion of the not insignificant FN support together with that of the centrist candidate Bayrou, which in basic terms could still add up to over 50% to allow the President to serve another 5 years against all the earlier odds.
Hollande, dubbed as Mr Ordinary, and complaining that after 17 years of centrist rule in France that it must now be his turn to rule may regrettably find himself joining his ex partner and previous PS Presidential candidate (Ségolène Royal) in opening flower shows and kissing prize bulls at the many village agricultural shows around rural France.
I had earlier written NS off, but now I shall now be watching the run-off with keen interest.

24 Apr 2012

thanks for the great reply GNV :thumbup:

24 Apr 2012

You're very welcome star, as always.
BTW, love your new

avatar :thumbup:

24 Apr 2012

Quote by GnV
You're very welcome star, as always.
BTW, love your new http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/images/avatars/20120423/db4d2fca.jpg avatar :thumbup:

thanks GNV. who do you reckon punch and judy are? wink

24 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
You're very welcome star, as always.
BTW, love your new http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/images/avatars/20120423/db4d2fca.jpg avatar :thumbup:

thanks GNV. who do you reckon punch and judy are? wink

Staggers and Ben dunno

But I'm not saying which is which :lol2:

24 Apr 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
You're very welcome star, as always.
BTW, love your new http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/images/avatars/20120423/db4d2fca.jpg avatar :thumbup:

thanks GNV. who do you reckon punch and judy are? wink

Staggers and Ben dunno

But I'm not saying which is which :lol2:

25 Sep 2012

see this mornings news bye bye then abu wave

:wave: dont let the door bump ya arse on the way out

25 Sep 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
see this mornings news bye bye then abu :wave: dont let the door bump ya arse on the way out

He'll probably call the border control people 'plebs' so he'll be re-arrested bolt

25 Sep 2012

Ten years this has taken and he certainly has had plenty of legal aid lawyers there ready to give him the freedom, he sadly wants to deny others.
I cannot understand though why it could take another two to three weeks to get him out. I am sure prison officers, the police and the flight crew, will gladly give up there time for free today to get him out. I bet the USA are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of having him in there grasp. Put it this way people, he will never ever see the UK again, that is for sure.
I hope the Americans have a nice black hole for him to slither into like the snake he is. :notes:
No nice little tellys and luxuries in his prison cell, and hopefully all the rest of his Wives and brood can get on the next plane out. That will save the taxpayer a few bob in the benefits they all take.

26 Sep 2012

Well hold on a minute Rob. A temporary injunction has now just been granted by a high court judge, banning his extradition until it has been heard in an open court.
This country is an absolute laughing stock. Ten years of waiting, years waiting for the unelected European courts banning his extradition on human rights grounds time and again. Finally we can extradite him to the USA, thinking his final chance had been and gone, and now this.
This country is spineless in so many ways, and even the Queen herself expressed alarm. Yet he is still here, hanging on to the country he hates yet does not want to leave. I believe that he will be put on a plane eventually, but it is a complete farce how this country has come to this utter madness. If Cameron had an ounce of credit he would have put him on a plane an hour after the European courts said he could be extradited a couple of days ago. Why the delay in getting him on that plane after ten years??????
Disgraceful.

26 Sep 2012

Quote by GnV
see this mornings news bye bye then abu :wave: dont let the door bump ya arse on the way out

He'll probably call the border control people 'plebs' so he'll be re-arrested bolt

26 Sep 2012

So all set for a little bit of good old fashioned U.S. justice .... btw this country has a policy of not extraditing to countries that carry out torture .....
Or at least we used to
And just for those who may think the first link from a dangerous left wing source

26 Sep 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
So all set for a little bit of good old fashioned U.S. justice .... btw this country has a policy of not extraditing to countries that carry out torture .....
Or at least we used to
And just for those who may think the first link from a dangerous left wing source

I shall draw your attention to this.

Please take note of his CONVICTIONS please. Also take notice of what the judge said at his trial.
" In sentencing, Mr Justice Hughes said Masri had "helped to create an atmosphere in which to kill has become regarded by some as not only a legitimate course but a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice". Masri was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.
He is guilty of murder in my eyes as that is what he preached, and others carried out his orders. At least the Americans will not be running scared of European judges, and Hamza will never see British soil again if extradited to the USA. That for me can only be a damn good thing.

26 Sep 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
So all set for a little bit of good old fashioned U.S. justice .... btw this country has a policy of not extraditing to countries that carry out torture .....
Or at least we used to
And just for those who may think the first link from a dangerous left wing source

I shall draw your attention to this.

Please take note of his CONVICTIONS please. Also take notice of what the judge said at his trial.
" In sentencing, Mr Justice Hughes said Masri had "helped to create an atmosphere in which to kill has become regarded by some as not only a legitimate course but a moral and religious duty in pursuit of perceived justice". Masri was sentenced to seven years' =red]1*
He is guilty of murder in my eyes as that is what he preached, and others carried out his orders 2*. At least the Americans will not be running scared of European judges, and Hamza will never see British soil again if extradited to the USA. That for me can only be a damn good thing.
Soooo ....
1:CONVICTIONS ... (your capitals) those would be for crimes he has been tried for already then
2:Unless you're serving on a jury trying him what he is or isn't guilty of in your eyes is irrelevant
It's interesting that you talk about following orders in the context of extraditing someone to a country who's president has absolved it's soldiers and secret service of any moral culpability when 'carrying out orders.
You do have an unerring knack of missing the point ... it looks almost deliberate ... the real problem with this and other cases is the independance of the judiciary and how it is being increasingly threatened in this country and others in the name of 'security' .... but I really am expecting too much of you if I ask you to see the wider issue aren't I, the Daily Hate doesn't why on earth should you

27 Sep 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Soooo ....
1:CONVICTIONS ... (your capitals) those would be for crimes he has been tried for already then

I would presume so. I thought I made that rather clear. but you do tend to see only what YOU want to see.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
2:Unless you're serving on a jury trying him what he is or isn't guilty of in your eyes is irrelevant

Not irrelevant as such, just that when he gets to the USA, he will be tried by a jury, and I believe found guilty. He will get a fair and just trial but that is more than what he offered others on his orders ( apparently ). As until he is tried and convicted it is all accusations of course.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
It's interesting that you talk about following orders in the context of extraditing someone to a country who's president has absolved it's soldiers and secret service of any moral culpability when 'carrying out orders.

Is that correct? I think the USA has to follow the same rules of engagement as we do in war? Of course war is dirty and unjust but then again I do not know what it is like to be shot at, or to see comrades blown up next to you, and I would suspect neither do you. Things happen in war, terrible things, but I will not be detracted from the fact that people like Hamza are cruel violent people, but also cowards as they get others to do their dirty work.
He has been convicted of many things in this country, and he is wanted to stand trial for other serious crimes in a country we have extradition treaty with. I am sure though Staggers that you would want justice to be seen to be done? So I would then presume that to answer that justice he should be sent to the USA to answer those charges? But I would then expect your hatred of the USA to cloud your judgement, which then interferes with your own personnel feelings.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
You do have an unerring knack of missing the point ... it looks almost deliberate

What YOUR point I take it you mean? Because I will never agree with your line of thinking on about 99% of things you say.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
the real problem with this and other cases is the independance of the judiciary and how it is being increasingly threatened in this country and others in the name of 'security'

In the eyes of Staggers you mean? rolleyes

What the same threatening of our judiciary you mean in it taking ten years to get this man out of the UK to stand trial on other very serious crimes? Any other country in the civilised world would have got him on a plane by now. Even now a high court judge has granted the extradition on hold until it comes back into the high court...AGAIN. What that kind of injustice within our judiciary you mean Staggers? :doh:

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
but I really am expecting too much of you if I ask you to see the wider issue aren't I, the Daily Hate doesn't why on earth should you

The wider issue of what exactly? In your mind what should the UK have done with Hamza then? Keep him in prison? Release him back into the community? Prey tell us what you would do in the mad bad world of Staggers?
Your continued running down of the Daily Mail has what to do with this exactly? The vast majority of people want him gone from our shores. The vast majority of decent hard working British people are sick of this fiasco. The media want him gone, expect for a few other papers like the Gua...., I cannot even speak the name after some of the disgusting things they have written about this case.
So what shall we do with this man then Staggers? I am intrigued to know your answer to this question.

27 Sep 2012

As usual Starlight you fail to see the bigger picture. The man's convictions in this country are completely irrelevant anyway to any crimes for which he may be wanted in the States, but more importantly than that, we're signatory to the UN Convention against Torture, and that trumps UK law every which way. That is the whole point of supra-national agreements like treaties: they are expressly designed to limit the range of actions available to the Govts of those nations that freely sign up to them.

UN Convention against Torture Article 3:
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Given that we already know from previous cases that some terrorism suspects have been water boarded, and subjected to treatment while in US custody, Guantanamo or elsewhere, that quite clearly violates Article 1 of that treaty, the man was quite within his rights to ask a court to rule on the lawfulness or otherwise of his extradition. By the same token the British Govt has acted quite properly in leaving this to the judiciary, thereby ensuring that his extradition is all above board legally. It's called Seperation of Powers, and critical to the functioning of a democracy. His extradition's been allowed on this particular question at last, so clearly the court's been satisfied that there's no cause to believe these 'substantial grounds' actually exist, as requested. Win for the British Govt and the Rule Of Law.
Not sure what your complaint is?

27 Sep 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
As usual Starlight you fail to see the bigger picture. The man's convictions in this country are completely irrelevant anyway to any crimes for which he may be wanted in the States, but more importantly than that, we're signatory to the UN Convention against Torture, and that trumps UK law every which way. That is the whole point of supra-national agreements like treaties: they are expressly designed to limit the range of actions available to the Govts of those nations that freely sign up to them.

Have the USA not given assurances that all compliance with international law will be given the highest priority? I am aware Neil that what he is being sought for in America has no bearing on any crimes he has been convicted of in the UK. The USA has asked for us to extradite him to the USA, to answer various charges. Hamza has now spent ten years using the legal system in this country to stop that extradition, a treaty btw that the UK have with America, of which they are entitled to ask us to extradite him to face those charges put before him. You and Staggers may well be using the argument of torture in the US, as has Hamza in his arguments for not being extradited but the courts have rejected those arguments time and again.

UN Convention against Torture Article 3:
1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Quote by neilinleeds
Given that we already know from previous cases that some terrorism suspects have been water boarded, and subjected to treatment while in US custody, Guantanamo or elsewhere, that quite clearly violates Article 1 of that treaty, the man was quite within his rights to ask a court to rule on the lawfulness or otherwise of his extradition. By the same token the British Govt has acted quite properly in leaving this to the judiciary, thereby ensuring that his extradition is all above board legally. It's called Seperation of Powers, and critical to the functioning of a democracy. His extradition's been allowed on this particular question at last, so clearly the court's been satisfied that there's no cause to believe these 'substantial grounds' actually exist, as requested. Win for the British Govt and the Rule Of Law.

I am also not sure what you are insinuating Neil here. Are you saying that Hamza should not be extradited to the US to face these charges, as America has a reputation for torture? I think so does every country have a history of torture, but America has given certain assurances on this. Obviously you think that because of Americas torture policies in Guantanamo, that Hamza could possibly be exposed to this? If that is the case Neil have you any evidence yourself that Hamza will be tortured?

Quote by neilinleeds
Not sure what your complaint is?

I certainly have no complaints at all with Hamza being extradited to the US to face very serious charges leveled against him. It seems your complaint is you think he will be tortured whilst in Americas hands. Proof this would be the case? Not good to give past examples Neil, as I am sure I could find plenty of examples of this countries tirture practices, and come to that any other countries.
Would you be ok not to extradite him then Neil? To release him from prison here, and let him get back to normality? What is your answer Neil?

27 Sep 2012

Are you saying that Hamza should not be extradited to the US to face these charges, as America has a reputation for torture? I think so does every country have a history of torture, but America has given certain assurances on this. Obviously you think that because of Americas torture policies in Guantanamo, that Hamza could possibly be exposed to this? If that is the case Neil have you any evidence yourself that Hamza will be tortured?

I don't need any evidence of anything, because I'm not insinuating anything. Whether I think there's even the remotest possibility of him being tortured is neither here nor there to any point I was making. This though is exactly the question the courts have been asked to rule on: on the balance of probabilities are there 'substantial grounds' for believing he may be tortured or otherwise mistreated. Obviously assurances as regards US behaviour in the past and its behaviour in the future have been given allowing the court to answer in the negative, but it's a question Hamza and his legal team had a perfect, inalienable right, regardless of his past convictions or offences suspected of to put to them. Your complaint seems to be that he should not have been allowed to have his day in court in the first place, and should just have been expelled years ago? An odd argument for anyone who would uphold the Rule of Law in defiance of those who would seek to dismantle it to be making. confused

It seems your complaint is you think he will be tortured whilst in Americas hands. Proof this would be the case? Not good to give past examples Neil, as I am sure I could find plenty of examples of this countries tirture practices, and come to that any other countries.

Again, I make no complaint whatsoever, and need prove nothing. See previous paragraph. You're asking me to back up what you seem to think is an assertion I simply have not made. Try re-reading my previous post.

27 Sep 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Again, I make no complaint whatsoever, and need prove nothing. See previous paragraph. You're asking me to back up what you seem to think is an assertion I simply have not made. Try re-reading my previous post.

I did read it again and that is how it seems.
For a person who hates this country so much, he sure is reluctant to leave it Neil. As soon as the European court decided that he can be extradited, the wheels should have already been in motion to remove him within 24 hours of that ruling. This total farce could go on for years at this rate.
We have a treaty with the USA on extradition, he has served his time in the UK prison system, and so we should extradite him to answer very serious charges. He and his lawyers are playing our legal system for fools and getting away with it.
Maybe now the home secretary and the PM can get their heads together, and as soon as the high court dismisses his current argument, he should be sent straight from there to Heathrow and onto a plane bound for the USA. No more delays in prison as the paper work should be done and everything in place. The Government thought that after the last European ruling that there would be no more delays, how wrong they were.
Where is Hamza getting the money to pay his legal team? Ah right the legal aid is picking up the tab, how fecking ironic is that in itself? British taxpayers money being used to fight the British Government. You really could not make it up. :doh: So much for austerity eh?

27 Sep 2012

Correction to above. Quoted the wrong Article 3. Should have been Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.' UN Convention on Torture expands on the definition of torture and actions to be taken by signatories to it. Previous posts otherwise stand in their entirety.