Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again

[Somewhatfoolish]

It's Charles Bronson, who did actually convert to Islam for a bit.

There are very, erm, divergent views as to Mr. Bronson's true personality but everyone agrees on him being hard as fk and very unlikely to get on well with the likes of Mr. Hamza (he has taken Iraqis hostage before).

[AmitG]

Breadvan72 said:

More Dr Johnson:-

Which book are the Johnson quotes from please? I'm interested in reading more...

[Digga]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have a bee in my bonnet about a particular 'Christian' sect that are pulling similar stunts to buy up chunks of communities and shut them down to public access, as well as fronting businesses and deliberately crowding out competitors. But that's another thread entirely, suffice to say the laws about charitable status and activities have already been overhauled in Australia and are in need of review here.

[anonymous-user]

AmitG said:

Breadvan72 said:

More Dr Johnson:-

Which book are the Johnson quotes from please? I'm interested in reading more...

They are quotations from Boswell's Life of Johnson. See also Tom Bingham's book on Johnson and the law. Johnson was not a lawyer, but he often said that he wished that he was one. He assisted Boswell, an indifferent lawyer, with several of his cases.

[AmitG]

Breadvan72 said:

AmitG said:

Breadvan72 said:

More Dr Johnson:-

Which book are the Johnson quotes from please? I'm interested in reading more...

They are quotations from Boswell's Life of Johnson. See also Tom Bingham's book on Johnson and the law. Johnson was not a lawyer, but he often said that he wished that he was one. He assisted Boswell, an indifferent lawyer, with several of his cases.

Thanks. I have the Boswell at home, I am now motivated to read it

[anonymous-user]

It is well worth it. See also Boswell's entertaining London Journal, describing his adventures as a young man in the big City in the 1760s. This includes his first meeting with Johnson. There's a good recent account of Boswell writing the Life, called "Boswell's Presumptious Task".

Boswell is to my mind more likeable than Johnson. Very flawed, but very human.

[Lost_BMW]

Digga said:

I have a bee in my bonnet about a particular 'Christian' sect that are pulling similar stunts to buy up chunks of communities and shut them down to public access, as well as fronting businesses and deliberately crowding out competitors. But that's another thread entirely, suffice to say the laws about charitable status and activities have already been overhauled in Australia and are in need of review here.

What group is this and what/where are they buying, and for what purpose?

[anonymous-user]

The Court hearing the case is composed of Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Ouseley. These are two tough Judges, and it's not a good draw for Hamza and the others. I am prepared to wager that the challenge to extradition will receive short shrift.

[SplatSpeed]

Breadvan72 said:

The Court hearing the case is composed of Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Ouseley. These are two tough Judges, and it's not a good draw for Hamza and the others. I am prepared to wager that the challenge to extradition will receive short shrift.

do you reckon the draw was rigged?

[anonymous-user]

Of course it was. Most cases get allocated to Judges more or less at random, but not this one. Thomas, who is in charge of the Division, probably said dibs, and chose Ouseley as his wingman, because of his experience on SIAC.

[Mr_B]

Breadvan72 said:

The Court hearing the case is composed of Sir John Thomas, President of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Ouseley. These are two tough Judges, and it's not a good draw for Hamza and the others. I am prepared to wager that the challenge to extradition will receive short shrift.

You mean after 10 years and millions of pounds, Britain is getting tough with these guys ?

[anonymous-user]

I add that it was Ouseley who first ordered Qatada to be deported to Jordan. That case is still churning on, but it shows the Judge's track record. He would have upheld control orders, too, but was overruled by the higher courts.

[odyssey2200]

Could we not have just walked him up to the gates of the American Embassy in London?

Result.
The yanks have their man & we have not "deported" him.

It boils my piss to see that the yanks can just name any other UK national and the courts just hand them over.

A silly nightshirt, a beard and believe in a sky daddy seems to be an effective shield.

[anonymous-user]

That is simply not the case, Other high profile, non terrorist extradition cases have involved protracted appeals.

Taking Hamza to the US embassy would achieve nothing. The US Embassy is not (contrary to popular myth) part of the USA, and it doesn't have a Federal Court or Prison on site.

[SplatSpeed]

Breadvan72 said:

That is simply not the case, Other high profile, non terrorist extradition cases have involved protracted appeals.

Taking Hamza to the US embassy would achieve nothing. The US Embassy is not (contrary to popular myth) part of the USA, and it doesn't have a Federal Court or Prison on site.

they have guns!

[anonymous-user]

Trial first, sentence after. Quaint, maybe, but that's the way.

[SplatSpeed]

Breadvan72 said:

Trial first, sentence after. Quaint, maybe, but that's the way.

I guess you are paid by the hour!

[zcacogp]

Breadvan72 said:

The US Embassy is not (contrary to popular myth) part of the USA ...

Really? I thought it was deemed to be territory of the power whose consulate/embassy it is? Hence the need to show passports at the door, and the fact that Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian one?

What is the legal status of an embassy? (That question may merit another thread!)

Oli.

[SplatSpeed]

zcacogp said:

Really? I thought it was deemed to be territory of the power whose consulate/embassy it is? Hence the need to show passports at the door, and the fact that Assange sought refuge in the Ecuadorian one?

What is the legal status of an embassy? (That question may merit another thread!)

Oli.

effectivly it is, legally it isn't

[anonymous-user]

An Embassy does not form part of the territory of its home State. By convention, the forces of the host State do not enter the Embassy without permission. Also by convention, diplomats are immune from prosecution for crimes committed in the host State.