Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
Borghetto said:
Look's like one of the Judges feels his 'mentaL' impairment should be a reason to speed up his extradition. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19814992
Sounds like this approach is going to well and truly backfire 
Sir John always speaks his mind, and his comments during a hearing are a reliable clue to how he will decide a case.
My forecast: Hamza will lose. He will then apply for permission to appeal. This Court will say no. He will apply for permission to the Court of Appeal. It will say no on the papers. He will renew his application, have a short hearing, and be turned down. That will be the end of it, and he will then be extradited.
The outcomes in the other cases may vary.
My forecast: Hamza will lose. He will then apply for permission to appeal. This Court will say no. He will apply for permission to the Court of Appeal. It will say no on the papers. He will renew his application, have a short hearing, and be turned down. That will be the end of it, and he will then be extradited.
The outcomes in the other cases may vary.
Breadvan72 said:
Sir John always speaks his mind, and his comments during a hearing are a reliable clue to how he will decide a case.
My forecast: Hamza will lose. He will then apply for permission to appeal. This Court will say no. He will apply for permission to the Court of Appeal. It will say no on the papers. He will renew his application, have a short hearing, and be turned down. That will be the end of it, and he will then be extradited.
The outcomes in the other cases may vary.
jack ruby saved the US a fortune!My forecast: Hamza will lose. He will then apply for permission to appeal. This Court will say no. He will apply for permission to the Court of Appeal. It will say no on the papers. He will renew his application, have a short hearing, and be turned down. That will be the end of it, and he will then be extradited.
The outcomes in the other cases may vary.
It doesn't take a bloke an hour to have a Sherman, even with a hooky hand. Hang on, they're both hooks. This could be a problem. Could he ask the guards for an assist?
The result of this latest fracas will be known on Friday.
PS: I have just checked, and there is no human right to knock one out, so we're in the clear on that one. Phew.
The result of this latest fracas will be known on Friday.
PS: I have just checked, and there is no human right to knock one out, so we're in the clear on that one. Phew.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 3rd October 17:55
Breadvan72 said:
I struggle to understand why people think that, because someone is accused of something, they must be guilty.
Not at all. I think, and quite fairly, that if someone is so desperate to avoid justice they are very well aware that it's not going to end well for them. Now how would they know the outcome if they were innocent?I also tend to believe that when a country/state is so determined to get hold of someone, then the charges will be pretty serious, and the case will be pretty good. They aren't going to all this time and trouble because of here say.
So, in other words, if someone is accused of something, they must be guilty.
If I were accused of something which is not regarded as worth of prosecution here, on evidence that seems tenuous, I would fight hard against being extradited. Keenness on the part of the US tells us little. Do we always trust governments? The US has been keen to get all sorts of people, and took many steps to get them, including illegal steps. See , for example, this notorious case:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
The US also held British citizens at Guantanamo without trial for several years. The US was very keen to get those people, and indeed got them.
The present case is not identical, as at least the US is following due process, but the other cases could reasonably prompt concern in an innocent man as well as a guilty one . I do not know if Ahmad is or is not guilty of anything other than maybe having the wrong sort of opinions, but there does seem some basis for concern about his case. Hamza, however, can sling his hooks and stand trial.
If I were accused of something which is not regarded as worth of prosecution here, on evidence that seems tenuous, I would fight hard against being extradited. Keenness on the part of the US tells us little. Do we always trust governments? The US has been keen to get all sorts of people, and took many steps to get them, including illegal steps. See , for example, this notorious case:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
The US also held British citizens at Guantanamo without trial for several years. The US was very keen to get those people, and indeed got them.
The present case is not identical, as at least the US is following due process, but the other cases could reasonably prompt concern in an innocent man as well as a guilty one . I do not know if Ahmad is or is not guilty of anything other than maybe having the wrong sort of opinions, but there does seem some basis for concern about his case. Hamza, however, can sling his hooks and stand trial.
Breadvan72 said:
So, in other words, if someone is accused of something, they must be guilty.
If I were accused of something which is not regarded as worth of prosecution here, on evidence that seems tenuous, I would fight hard against being extradited. Keenness on the part of the US tells us little. Do we always trust governments? The US has been keen to get all sorts of people, and took many steps to get them, including illegal steps. See , for example, this notorious case:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
The US also held British citizens at Guantanamo without trial for several years. The US was very keen to get those people, and indeed got them.
The present case is not identical, as at least the US is following due process, but the other cases could reasonably prompt concern in an innocent man as well as a guilty one . I do not know if Ahmad is or is not guilty of anything other than maybe having the wrong sort of opinions, but there does seem some basis for concern about his case. Hamza, however, can sling his hooks and stand trial.
remind me how he lost his eye and his hand?If I were accused of something which is not regarded as worth of prosecution here, on evidence that seems tenuous, I would fight hard against being extradited. Keenness on the part of the US tells us little. Do we always trust governments? The US has been keen to get all sorts of people, and took many steps to get them, including illegal steps. See , for example, this notorious case:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
The US also held British citizens at Guantanamo without trial for several years. The US was very keen to get those people, and indeed got them.
The present case is not identical, as at least the US is following due process, but the other cases could reasonably prompt concern in an innocent man as well as a guilty one . I do not know if Ahmad is or is not guilty of anything other than maybe having the wrong sort of opinions, but there does seem some basis for concern about his case. Hamza, however, can sling his hooks and stand trial.
this a
hole is guilty in the court of public opinion!So are lots of people, which is why we have courts and do not sentence people on the basis of what Joe Public thinks. Hamza has been a crim, and has done time for that. He may also be guilty of what is alleged against him in the US. He should go and be tried for that, so that a jury can decide.
My residual concern is about the Ahmad case, not the Hamza case.
My residual concern is about the Ahmad case, not the Hamza case.
Breadvan72 said:
I don't get that. High earnings are a factor of markets. City traders are often less highly educated and qualified than doctors, lawyers, and engineers, and they arguably contribute less to the working of society, but they are paid more than the learned professions because the market says so.
The 'learned professions'. What a misnomer that is.The fact is that many of those 'professions' are highly paid because the markets are manipulated and controlled by the so called professionals. It isn't the market 'saying so'.
How does that work then? I get paid what my clients are willing to pay, and they negotiate hard. I have lots of competitors, and have to do beauty parades, tenders and so forth. Some clients pay a non negotiable rate set by them.
The term learned professions seems accurate to describe people who train for several years in order to qualify, and are subject to continuing education obligations whilst working. Most doctors and engineers that I know are pretty learned. Lawyers vary.
The term learned professions seems accurate to describe people who train for several years in order to qualify, and are subject to continuing education obligations whilst working. Most doctors and engineers that I know are pretty learned. Lawyers vary.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 4th October 09:29
Breadvan72 said:
How does that work then? I get paid what my clients are willing to pay, and they negotiate hard. I have lots of competitors, and have to do beauty parades, tenders and so forth. Some clients pay a non ngeotiable rate set by them.
The term learned professions seems accurate to describe people who train for several years in order to qualify, and are subject to continuing education obligations whilst working. Most doctors and engineers that I know are pretty learned. Lawyers vary.
Google 'Closed Shop'.... The term learned professions seems accurate to describe people who train for several years in order to qualify, and are subject to continuing education obligations whilst working. Most doctors and engineers that I know are pretty learned. Lawyers vary.
Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to should be able to practise medicine or law, or build bridges? It seems reasonable to me to require entrants to professions to have decent academic qualifications and to pass professional exams. They then get paid according to supply and demand laws, or, in government work, according to rates set nationally, which are lower than market rates.
REALIST123 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I don't get that. High earnings are a factor of markets. City traders are often less highly educated and qualified than doctors, lawyers, and engineers, and they arguably contribute less to the working of society, but they are paid more than the learned professions because the market says so.
The 'learned professions'. What a misnomer that is.The fact is that many of those 'professions' are highly paid because the markets are manipulated and controlled by the so called professionals. It isn't the market 'saying so'.
Breadvan72 said:
Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to should be able to practise medicine or law, or build bridges? It seems reasonable to me to require entrants to professions to have decent academic qualifications and to pass professional exams. They then get paid according to supply and demand laws, or, in government work, according to rates set nationally, which are lower than market rates.
With tongue at least partly in cheek I would suggest that medicine and civil engineering are in and of themselves inherently complex and challenging. The law is complex and challenging because centuries of dilligent effort by its practitioners have made it so.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff