So Abu Hamza (aka The Hook) can be sent on his way to the States the ECHR says.
Due to austerity measures in the UK, could there be any truth in the rumour that he will be packaged off in a cage in the hold of a BA flight to travel like any other animal does?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
By Hook or by.....
Quote by GnV
So Abu Hamza (aka The Hook) can be sent on his way to the States the ECHR says.
Due to austerity measures in the UK, could there be any truth in the rumour that he will be packaged off in a cage in the hold of a BA flight to travel like any other animal does?
would be a good idea though gnv.
i always thought this would be the outcome seeing as the human rights courts would not let us kick that other guy out back to Jordan.
this guy without any doubt is a terrorist with terrorist links. he has just finished a sentenance for this where he was convicted in the courts before anyone on here starts shouting about lack of any evidence.
the yanks will i am sure know how to deal with this guy and his other western haters ( but quick enough to take the benefits we offer though ). i hope that before any smart arsed lawyer spots something to get him off the hook, yes pun intended, to put him and his mates on the first flight out to the states. may he never ever see the light of day again, and funnily enough once in america do you reely think hooky will?
what a total horrid little man, and this country will be a lot safer with him not being here spouting his filth and his hatred. look after him though america please. solitary for about 15 years will be a great idea. :thumbup:
Quote by tyracer
front page of the sun tomorrow.
sling ya hook!
no actually it is " See you later, Britain hater ".
nine years it has taken and still he has 3 months to appeal this decision. sheer madness. stick him and his fellow haters on a plane to the good ol US of A tonight. i bet the americans will not pussy foot around him, and when he screams about his human rights in that super max prison i am sure they will listen intently to his wishes.
:rotflmao::rotflmao: Who cares what the european courts had decided anyway, they did not have the power to prevent the extradition no matter what they had decided, many of those deciding the outcome are not even qualified in matters of law.
I ask myself, would Australia have let him stay in thier country, would Israel care about world opinion if they extradited someone, would a Muslim Country allow someone to stay (unmolested) if they preached hatred of thier culture and religion.
Just get on with it and send him to the USA, you cannot become terrorists to stop terrorism but you cannot beat it by playing by old fashioned British sense of fair play either and sometimes you just have to take the flak of World opinion as we did with carpet bombing, sinking the French fleet, raising Dresden, The Gulf Wars, sinking the Belgranno etc.
I ask myself, would Australia have let him stay in thier country, would Israel care about world opinion if they extradited someone, would a Muslim Country allow someone to stay (unmolested) if they preached hatred of thier culture and religion.
Just get on with it and send him to the USA, you cannot become terrorists to stop terrorism but you cannot beat it by playing by old fashioned British sense of fair play either and sometimes you just have to take the flak of World opinion as we did with carpet bombing, sinking the French fleet, raising Dresden, The Gulf Wars, sinking the Belgranno etc.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Who cares what the european courts had decided anyway, they did not have the power to prevent the extradition no matter what they had decided, many of those deciding the outcome are not even qualified in matters of law.
I ask myself, would Australia have let him stay in thier country, would Israel care about world opinion if they extradited someone, would a Muslim Country allow someone to stay (unmolested) if they preached hatred of thier culture and religion.
Just get on with it and send him to the USA, you cannot become terrorists to stop terrorism but you cannot beat it by playing by old fashioned British sense of fair play either and sometimes you just have to take the flak of World opinion as we did with carpet bombing, sinking the French fleet, raising Dresden, The Gulf Wars, sinking the Belgranno etc.
all very noble mids and on your comments above you are perhaps not familiar with the treaty that this country entered into?
i will not bore you with the details of that treaty mids as it is out there to google, but in a nut shell we have to abide by the rulings of unelected peeple in europe to dictate our laws. blame tony bliar for that one mids. yes we can of course defy europe but as we have only PM's that have no back bone and are scared shitless of upsetting the leaders in europe, then we are stuck with it.
i am sure that had mrs T had still been in charge today, the argies would be shaking in there boots right now, and europe would have just been steam rollered over, and these terrorists would have been sent to the country who wanted to try them. since mrs T there has not been one single PM with any balls, and come out in a rash at the slightest sign of upsetting france or germany.
that is the reality now mids. we may well vote with a big X on the ballot sheet, but any major decisions are taken in europe. still when we entered europe in 1975 i am sure this is what peeple voted for? other than that vote we have never been given any other opportunity to vote over europe as the powers that be know we would vote to get out of europe. running scared of the voters is what it is mids. :thumbup:
Quote by starlightcouple
front page of the sun tomorrow.
sling ya hook!
no actually it is " See you later, Britain hater ".
nine years it has taken and still he has 3 months to appeal this decision. sheer madness. stick him and his fellow haters on a plane to the good ol US of A tonight. i bet the americans will not pussy foot around him, and when he screams about his human rights in that super max prison i am sure they will listen intently to his wishes.
:rotflmao::rotflmao:well i hadnt seen the sun or read it.
just guessed what the title would
It's a bloody joke. That scum and others have been free to claim any and all benefits thereby living in luxury, in comparison to most of the world. We however sit back and allow them to actively work towards destroying our society.
Never ending court appearances in which we the tax payer and charged the complete bill for everything whilst jokers bleet about how his human rights would be ignored if deported. What human rights does he respect?
We will continue to serve as targets until we wake up and develop a pair of balls as a nation.
Never ending court appearances in which we the tax payer and charged the complete bill for everything whilst jokers bleet about how his human rights would be ignored if deported. What human rights does he respect?
We will continue to serve as targets until we wake up and develop a pair of balls as a nation.
Quote by starlightcouple
Who cares what the european courts had decided anyway, they did not have the power to prevent the extradition no matter what they had decided, many of those deciding the outcome are not even qualified in matters of law.
I ask myself, would Australia have let him stay in thier country, would Israel care about world opinion if they extradited someone, would a Muslim Country allow someone to stay (unmolested) if they preached hatred of thier culture and religion.
Just get on with it and send him to the USA, you cannot become terrorists to stop terrorism but you cannot beat it by playing by old fashioned British sense of fair play either and sometimes you just have to take the flak of World opinion as we did with carpet bombing, sinking the French fleet, raising Dresden, The Gulf Wars, sinking the Belgranno etc.
all very noble mids and on your comments above you are perhaps not familiar with the treaty that this country entered into?
i will not bore you with the details of that treaty mids as it is out there to google, but in a nut shell we have to abide by the rulings of unelected peeple in europe to dictate our laws. blame tony bliar for that one mids. yes we can of course defy europe but as we have only PM's that have no back bone and are scared shitless of upsetting the leaders in europe, then we are stuck with it.
i am sure that had mrs T had still been in charge today, the argies would be shaking in there boots right now, and europe would have just been steam rollered over, and these terrorists would have been sent to the country who wanted to try them. since mrs T there has not been one single PM with any balls, and come out in a rash at the slightest sign of upsetting france or germany.
that is the reality now mids. we may well vote with a big X on the ballot sheet, but any major decisions are taken in europe. still when we entered europe in 1975 i am sure this is what peeple voted for? other than that vote we have never been given any other opportunity to vote over europe as the powers that be know we would vote to get out of europe. running scared of the voters is what it is mids. :thumbup:
star,
Tony Blair..negotited europe treaty???? I take it you are on about the Maastrict treaty which Mrs T negotiated and John Major ratified.....below is full link to the details..as I know you like your links...but here is important part
Ratification
The process of ratifying the treaty was fraught with difficulties in three states. In Denmark, the first Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum was held on 2 June 1992 but a shortfall of fewer than 50,000 votes resulted in the treaty not being ratified. After the failure, alterations were made to the treaty through the addition of the Edinburgh Agreement which lists four Danish exceptions. The treaty was eventually ratified the following year on 18 May 1993 after a second referendum was held in Denmark.
"In September 1992, a referendum in France only narrowly supported the ratification of the treaty, with % in favour. Uncertainty over the Danish and French referendums was one of the causes of the turmoil on the currency markets in September 1992, which led to the UK pound's expulsion from the Exchange Rate Mechanism.
In the United Kingdom, an opt-out from the treaty's social provisions was opposed in Parliament by the opposition Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and the treaty itself by the Maastricht Rebels within the governing Conservative Party. The number of rebels exceeded the Conservative majority in the House of Commons, and thus the government of John Major came close to losing the confidence of the House. "
Quote by starlightcouple
since mrs T there has not been one single PM with any balls, and come out in a rash at the slightest sign of upsetting france or germany.
that is the reality now mids. we may well vote with a big X on the ballot sheet, but any major decisions are taken in europe. still when we entered europe in 1975 i am sure this is what peeple voted for? other than that vote we have never been given any other opportunity to vote over europe as the powers that be know we would vote to get out of europe. running scared of the voters is what it is mids. :thumbup:
Brown had two Balls.... Ed and Yvette
Quote by deancannock
we are stuck with it.
star,
Tony Blair..negotited europe treaty???? I take it you are on about the Maastrict treaty which Mrs T negotiated and John Major ratified.....below is full link to the details..as I know you like your links...but here is important part
no dean pay attention now
the Lisbon treaty. signed and ratified by the last two labout leeders. you know the treaty that not even the experts could understand. it was there deliberatly put in place to get everyone to say yes by making it impossible to understand.
as far as i remember bliar also said he would give us a referendum but we never got one.
do you really think that when the Masastict treaty was signed that either Mrs T or major would have signed us up to this madness?
plus also it was tony bliar and his government and then gorden brown that signed us up to this madness dean.
does that help a little more dean
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
in a nut shell we have to abide by the rulings of unelected peeple in europe to dictate our laws. blame tony bliar for that one mids
Star, I know Tony Blair was in power a good few years but I'm pretty sure he wasn't in power in the 1950s, which is when the ECtHR was created, Britain being a prime mover of the treaty that created it. You seem to constantly labour under the misapprehension that had it not been for the Human Rights Act we would not now be bound by a treaty that gives a European Court final authority. That is wrong. We would still be bound by the 1950s treaty even if the HRA had never existed. All the HRA does is bring the rights you enjoy under the original convention more properly into British Law so a UK court can settle disputes more readily without the need for the European Court's involvement unless an appeal is allowed. Overturn the HRA tomorrow and your rights under the EHCR would remain.
Quote by starlightcouple
we are stuck with it.
star,
Tony Blair..negotited europe treaty???? I take it you are on about the Maastrict treaty which Mrs T negotiated and John Major ratified.....below is full link to the details..as I know you like your links...but here is important part
no dean pay attention now
the Lisbon treaty. signed and ratified by the last two labout leeders. you know the treaty that not even the experts could understand. it was there deliberatly put in place to get everyone to say yes by making it impossible to understand.
as far as i remember bliar also said he would give us a referendum but we never got one.
do you really think that when the Masastict treaty was signed that either Mrs T or major would have signed us up to this madness?
plus also it was tony bliar and his government and then gorden brown that signed us up to this madness dean.
does that help a little more dean
I can understand there would be a lot in Maastrict you don't like...but just read the lisbon treaty link..and very useful button the treaty at a glance. Perhaps you could enlighten me to the bit you don't like...all seems very good to me !!!
Quote by neilinleeds
in a nut shell we have to abide by the rulings of unelected peeple in europe to dictate our laws. blame tony bliar for that one mids
Star, I know Tony Blair was in power a good few years but I'm pretty sure he wasn't in power in the 1950s, which is when the ECtHR was created, Britain being a prime mover of the treaty that created it. You seem to constantly labour under the misapprehension that had it not been for the Human Rights Act we would not now be bound by a treaty that gives a European Court final authority. That is wrong. We would still be bound by the 1950s treaty even if the HRA had never existed. All the HRA does is bring the rights you enjoy under the original convention more properly into British Law so a UK court can settle disputes more readily without the need for the European Court's involvement unless an appeal is allowed. Overturn the HRA tomorrow and your rights under the EHCR would remain.
neil i am sure that when the european court of human rights was formed rightly as you say in the 50's, they never intended it to be used in the way it is being abused today. i am all for human rights neil when peeple need them, but i am greatly against humans using them to protect there own horrid deeds, such as hooky hamza. he has only been able to stay here because appeal after appeal using the human rights act as his best form of defense. i am sure that you would agree neil that the human rights bill is being abused by the likes of murderers such as hamza and the other guy that we cannot send back to jordon to protect his human rights.
or the other way peeple stay here was i think a little while ago when a guy said because he had a cat here. is that what the law makers reely thought this would be used for when these laws were brought in neil?
Quote by deancannock
I can understand there would be a lot in Maastrict you don't like...but just read the lisbon treaty link..and very useful button the treaty at a glance. Perhaps you could enlighten me to the bit you don't like...all seems very good to me !!!
where do i start dean? i am suprised that you could do what some experts failed to do, and that is to understand it. still i shall give you a few examples seeing as you asked.
1) The Treaty slashes our ability to veto EU legislation that damages the UK’s business and way of life. Our veto is axed in 40 areas — from energy to public health and industry.
2) Britain will have no defence against new laws that could cost taxpayers billions of pounds.
3) Unelected judges in Luxembourg are given powers over our justice and asylum system. Asylum claimers can take their cases to the European Court of Justice for the first time. The EU is also given power to set immigration policies for all 27 members and to rule on criminal policy.
and the most worrying aspect is number 4 dean.
4) Brussels will take powers for itself in the future without having to ask permission from our parliament. The Treaty is “self-amending”, which means the EU can decide it wants more powers and take them without referring to national parliaments. No more referendums or discussions will be necessary.
it all seems very good to you dean does it? where is the swoon emotion
i think that is more than enough to be getting on with dean, dont you think? :doh:
Quote by deancannock
well Star...I have read the easy bit..which is " at a glance " button on the link you provided......I don't see any of the above....perhaps you could cut and paste the bit...I looked threee times now and don't see it !!!
dean do you reely want me to do all the hard work for you?
what i have stated above are facts within the treaty and are happening everyday because of the treaty. for europe to be able to do the things it does, it must have some kind of legislation behind it, would you not agree dean?
then i am sorry i have done all that you have asked, the harder part obviously is you finding it. the easy bit you have achieved, now see if you can find the hard bits that europe did not want us to see. go on.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
well Star...I have read the easy bit..which is " at a glance " button on the link you provided......I don't see any of the above....perhaps you could cut and paste the bit...I looked threee times now and don't see it !!!
dean do you reely want me to do all the hard work for you?
what i have stated above are facts within the treaty and are happening everyday because of the treaty. for europe to be able to do the things it does, it must have some kind of legislation behind it, would you not agree dean?
then i am sorry i have done all that you have asked, the harder part obviously is you finding it. the easy bit you have achieved, now see if you can find the hard bits that europe did not want us to see. go on.
I think Dean was asking for evidence of these 'facts' I would be more than a little curious to see some myself
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I think Dean was asking for evidence of these 'facts' I would be more than a little curious to see some myself
Not your usual reading material I know Staggs, but you need to hold your nose, take a deep draught of whatever your local has on offer this week and read The Daily Wail to get your 'evidence'. It's even written is 'sun-ease' to make life easier for you :lol2:
Quote by GnV
Not your usual reading material I know Staggs, but you need to hold your nose, take a deep draught of whatever your local has on offer this week and read The Daily Wail to get your 'evidence'. It's even written is 'sun-ease' to make life easier for you :lol2:
what like this GNV?
or what about this?
the most damning accurate truth that has happened.
sort of that kind of stuff gnv?
Maybe star, but it's old hat now. GB is writing his memoirs and spending time on the US speaking circuit.
There's nothing wrong with defying Brussels. Ship the evil buggers out on the first available flight. When the deed is done and dusted, you can't ship the evil bastards back.
Like him or lump him, M. le Président Sarkozy did just that with the Roma when they started shooting Policemen and rioting in the south of France.
Liberalist groups in the European Parliament and the Commission where aghast at the action and threatened the Président and France with sanctions.
Did it come to anything? Absolutely not. M. Sarkozy told them not only where to stick their fingers but how many at a time and nothing more was said.
That's how to deal with the Commission. Ignore the fooking, insignificant, self opinionated prats.
Agree with you about Maggie though; Her "non! non! non!" in the House all those years ago after Jaques Delors said he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, the Commission to be the Executive and the Council of Ministers to be the Senate did wonders for Britain's self-esteem.
There's nothing wrong with defying Brussels. Ship the evil buggers out on the first available flight. When the deed is done and dusted, you can't ship the evil bastards back.
Like him or lump him, M. le Président Sarkozy did just that with the Roma when they started shooting Policemen and rioting in the south of France.
Liberalist groups in the European Parliament and the Commission where aghast at the action and threatened the Président and France with sanctions.
Did it come to anything? Absolutely not. M. Sarkozy told them not only where to stick their fingers but how many at a time and nothing more was said.
That's how to deal with the Commission. Ignore the fooking, insignificant, self opinionated prats.
Agree with you about Maggie though; Her "non! non! non!" in the House all those years ago after Jaques Delors said he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, the Commission to be the Executive and the Council of Ministers to be the Senate did wonders for Britain's self-esteem.
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Maybe star, but it's old hat now. GB is writing his memoirs and spending time on the US speaking circuit.
There's nothing wrong with defying Brussels. Ship the evil buggers out on the first available flight. When the deed is done and dusted, you can't ship the evil bastards back.
Like him or lump him, M. le Président Sarkozy did just that with the Roma when they started shooting Policemen and rioting in the south of France.
Liberalist groups in the European Parliament and the Commission where aghast at the action and threatened the Président and France with sanctions.
Did it come to anything? Absolutely not. M. Sarkozy told them not only where to stick their fingers but how many at a time and nothing more was said.
That's how to deal with the Commission. Ignore the fooking, insignificant, self opinionated prats.
Agree with you about Maggie though; Her "non! non! non!" in the House all those years ago after Jaques Delors said he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, the Commission to be the Executive and the Council of Ministers to be the Senate did wonders for Britain's self-esteem.
:thumbup:
Quote by GnV
Maybe star, but it's old hat now. GB is writing his memoirs and spending time on the US speaking circuit.
There's nothing wrong with defying Brussels. Ship the evil buggers out on the first available flight. When the deed is done and dusted, you can't ship the evil bastards back.
Like him or lump him, M. le Président Sarkozy did just that with the Roma when they started shooting Policemen and rioting in the south of France.
Liberalist groups in the European Parliament and the Commission where aghast at the action and threatened the Président and France with sanctions.
Did it come to anything? Absolutely not. M. Sarkozy told them not only where to stick their fingers but how many at a time and nothing more was said.
That's how to deal with the Commission. Ignore the fooking, insignificant, self opinionated prats.
Agree with you about Maggie though; Her "non! non! non!" in the House all those years ago after Jaques Delors said he wanted the European Parliament to be the democratic body of the Community, the Commission to be the Executive and the Council of Ministers to be the Senate did wonders for Britain's self-esteem.
the trouble is though gnv, who in the uk parliament has the balls to defy europe? when cameron tried it recently your french president threw his dummy out of the pram. have we got a PM who has the guts to defy brussels then
if show can you point me in there direction please, Quote by starlightcouple
the trouble is though gnv, who in the uk parliament has the balls to defy europe? when cameron tried it recently your french president threw his dummy out of the pram. have we got a PM who has the guts to defy brussels then
That was pure puff from the British Press on a no news day. The following week (or so) DC was enjoying another rather nice lunch at the Élysée Palace with M. Sarkozy, all smiles and the finest vin blanc from the cellars, served no doubt by the delectable Carla Bruni wearing something chic to warm DC's cockles
It's all a game.
Nowhere in that clip you very kindly provided did I see DC extend his hand to NS and it was refused. He patted NS on the back as they passed and DC had a smile on his face. The other two delegates extended their hands which were reciprocated.
I recall seeing an advert on UK TV some time ago. It depicted a young guy who gave every appearance that he was about to do some harm to someone but, in the event, was giving assistance to someone. Many clips can be taken out of context, and the one with the apparent refusal by NS to to shake hands with DC was one of them.
I recall seeing an advert on UK TV some time ago. It depicted a young guy who gave every appearance that he was about to do some harm to someone but, in the event, was giving assistance to someone. Many clips can be taken out of context, and the one with the apparent refusal by NS to to shake hands with DC was one of them.
Quote by GnV
Nowhere in that clip you very kindly provided did I see DC extend his hand to NS and it was refused. He patted NS on the back as they passed and DC had a smile on his face. The other two delegates extended their hands which were reciprocated.
I recall seeing an advert on UK TV some time ago. It depicted a young guy who gave every appearance that he was about to do some harm to someone but, in the event, was giving assistance to someone. Many clips can be taken out of context, and the one with the apparent refusal by NS to to shake hands with DC was one of them.
:rotflmao:you have lived in france to long GNV. you have developed there sense of humor.
which on a scale of 1 to ten is about a to and a half.
Quote by starlightcouple
Nowhere in that clip you very kindly provided did I see DC extend his hand to NS and it was refused. He patted NS on the back as they passed and DC had a smile on his face. The other two delegates extended their hands which were reciprocated.
I recall seeing an advert on UK TV some time ago. It depicted a young guy who gave every appearance that he was about to do some harm to someone but, in the event, was giving assistance to someone. Many clips can be taken out of context, and the one with the apparent refusal by NS to to shake hands with DC was one of them.
:rotflmao:you have lived in france to long GNV. you have developed there sense of humor.
which on a scale of 1 to ten is about a to and a half.
So point out to me where in the clip you suggest there is evidence of a 'snub', the point at which NS ignores the extended hand of DC.
There is nothing wrong with my sense of humour; even less my sense of fair play.
The plain fact is that DC did not extend his hand to NS and thus there was no snub. They acknowledged each other in passing (having earlier already formally greeted) and it was NC's mission to greet another delegate.
You should also know that, in France, it is regarded as impolite to shake the hand of someone you have already greeted that day for the reason that it suggests you have forgotten the earlier meeting. Perhaps DC is more cultured than you give him credit for. His father did own property in France after all and when he died suddenly, NS placed the Presidential aircraft at DC's disposal - the act of a friend.
it has been stated today that hooky hamza is concerned that if he is sent to the USA, that he will be denied a right to a family life, as his family will still be in the UK.
the same family living rent free in a pound house getting over £500 a week in benefits on top of free rent and rates.
has anyone got any suggestions as to what should be done with his family, if he is saying his family life will be affected?
the same family living rent free in a pound house getting over £500 a week in benefits on top of free rent and rates.
has anyone got any suggestions as to what should be done with his family, if he is saying his family life will be affected?
