Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again

Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again

Author
Discussion

theironduke

6,995 posts

187 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Drclarke said:
Lordbenny said:
He's the top extradition copper over here, if your a foreign baddie he's got your number!
I'm intrigued. Were they put on the planes in chains, was it a chartered commercial aircraft?
Pretty sure they were Gulfstreams, i'd imagine the only other passengers were wearing suits with little stars and stripes lapel badges smile....and bulges under their jackets wink

Lost_BMW

12,955 posts

175 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
princeperch said:
Lost_BMW said:
But what of the loyal solicitor who stuck with him for years?
she was last seen clinging to the landing gear of a certain plane in suffolk as it took off late last night shouting to someone on board that everything will be alright...











(this is not true but if it were it wouldn't surprise me)
I'd love that it could have been 'arranged' and that she could have fallen into the Atlantic.

[Theresa May]Who will free me from this troublesome solicitor?[/Theresa May]

onyx39

11,109 posts

149 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
theironduke said:
Drclarke said:
Lordbenny said:
He's the top extradition copper over here, if your a foreign baddie he's got your number!
I'm intrigued. Were they put on the planes in chains, was it a chartered commercial aircraft?
Pretty sure they were Gulfstreams, i'd imagine the only other passengers were wearing suits with little stars and stripes lapel badges smile....and bulges under their jackets wink
Not chartered.
Belong to US DOJ afaik

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
So, a person who has a legally enforceable professional obligation to work for whichever client comes through the door is scum?

Does he become scum only when the client is convicted, or is it enough for the client to be accused of something bad?

What about a prison doctor who attends a sick prisoner? Is the doctor scum?
people who want to be solicitors ususally are scum, yes.

the few who aren't become scum when they defend people like hamza.


RedTrident

8,290 posts

234 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
TallbutBuxomly said:
Mt take on this as well. If he set up a website in the US to raise funds for terrorism which would be used against the US and the west then the US have every right to try him in their court of law on terrorism charges.
He didn't happen to be in London at the time. He is a British national that lived here. And he didn't set up a webpage in the US. He set it up here.

I have a problem with all of these cases where we're extraditing UK nationals who are alleged of crimes that our legal system is more than capable of addressing.

Matt80M

1,137 posts

171 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
TopOnePercent said:
people who want to be solicitors ususally are scum, yes.

the few who aren't become scum when they defend people like hamza.
What a very silly thing to say.

Marf

22,907 posts

240 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Matt80M said:
TopOnePercent said:
people who want to be solicitors ususally are scum, yes.

the few who aren't become scum when they defend people like hamza.
What a very silly thing to say.
Well on the basis he's judging all solicitors to be scum, I guess it's safe to assume that TopOnePercent is a knuckle dragging tattoo'd no-necked skin headed burbery clad staffy owning charver because he drives a WRX?

NightRunner

12,230 posts

193 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Handbags, yay!

Marf

22,907 posts

240 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
hehe

I thought were were playing the "who can dredge up the most played out stereotype" game? wink

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
RedTrident said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Mt take on this as well. If he set up a website in the US to raise funds for terrorism which would be used against the US and the west then the US have every right to try him in their court of law on terrorism charges.
He didn't happen to be in London at the time. He is a British national that lived here. And he didn't set up a webpage in the US. He set it up here.

I have a problem with all of these cases where we're extraditing UK nationals who are alleged of crimes that our legal system is more than capable of addressing.
But can our system deal with the problem ? I think our judicial system at times is a joke, take the Afghan hijackers who ended up winning asylum here, the UK is seen as an easy touch and a legal system that in most peoples view is failing the majority of the population,
if they think they have done nothing wrong what is wrong with them fighting their case in the USA ?
A country that has a very similar legal system to our own.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
RedTrident said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Mt take on this as well. If he set up a website in the US to raise funds for terrorism which would be used against the US and the west then the US have every right to try him in their court of law on terrorism charges.
He didn't happen to be in London at the time. He is a British national that lived here. And he didn't set up a webpage in the US. He set it up here.

I have a problem with all of these cases where we're extraditing UK nationals who are alleged of crimes that our legal system is more than capable of addressing.
what you have to consider is that we have no idea what the full list of charges that he faces in the US are.

what we do know is that he has been in close contact with known terrorist activists, was in possession of classified US military data of use to plan a terrorist attack, etc etc.

Personally speaking, I think it's right he stands trial over there, and if they had let him go in the first place and spent the money they have trying to put this off in a decent defence for him, who knows? he may well be a free man?

the contrast here is the Christopher Tappin case, which seems far more flimsy and contrived, but he had the dignity to man up and face it head on (and without the help of the bleeding hearts brigade paid for by the taxpayer)

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?

Hilts

4,383 posts

281 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?
What weapons were these then?

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?
not quite...

he never sold anything to anybody, he was caught up in a sting operation. (and since when is a battery a weapon?)

then he exercised his right to appeal, lost it, and handed himself in for extradition.

he did not string it out for 14 years with every excuse under the sun.

Marf

22,907 posts

240 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Hilts said:
Breadvan72 said:
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?
What weapons were these then?
Batteries. Heat seeking semi automatic thermonuclear batteries.

Hilts

4,383 posts

281 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Marf said:
Hilts said:
Breadvan72 said:
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?
What weapons were these then?
Batteries. Heat seeking semi automatic thermonuclear batteries.
biggrin

Good save there.

Marf

22,907 posts

240 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Hilts said:
Marf said:
Hilts said:
Breadvan72 said:
Er, was that the same Christopher Tappin who appealed and whinged like crazy and who is alleged to have helped sell weapons to Iran?
What weapons were these then?
Batteries. Heat seeking semi automatic thermonuclear batteries.
biggrin

Good save there.
wink

I'm not sure I agree with Breadvan's characterisation of Tappin as a whinger. He appealed the extradition in the UK courts, when that failed he handed himself in. He could probably have gone to the EHCR but didnt, unlike many others facing extradition to the US

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The EU is now subscribing to the ECHR, but the two institutions have been completely separate until recently. The ECHR is an instrument of the Council of Europe, which has many more members than the EU.

The ECHR was largely drafted by David Maxwell Fyfe, later Viscount Kilmuir, a British Conservative lawyer who cross examined Goering at Nuremberg, served as Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor in postwar Tory Governments, and signed the death warrants of Derek Bentley and others. The ECHR reflects 1000 years of English/Scottish Common law, and is not an alien code.

The Strasbourg Court is political and weak in quality nowadays. I would favour having our Supreme Court deciding with finality on all ECHR cases. I would favour an entrenched UK Bill of Rights.
Apologies on my earlier post - I meant ECHR rather than EU (though my feelings about the EU are no more positive).

I was aware that the convention drafting was largely done by a Brit (but the additional detail is - genuinely smile - interesting). I still do not believe we should have to bow in the slightest to the European Court, however.

Indeed, that the ECHR "reflects 1000 years of English/Scottish Common law, and is not an alien code" makes me feel even more strongly that appeals to it, after myriad appeals in the UK process, are simply a waste of everyone's time and money and that we should draw a line under them now - if Theresa May wants to avoid this sort of shenanigans in future as she purports, she can start there IMO.

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
...We do not live in a McCarthyite or Stasi state in which any expression of dissent indicates disloyalty.
I would suggest quite strongly that supporting/preaching for the death of the citizens of the society you have freely chosen as your home very much indicates disloyalty.

I don't think anyone wants a McCarthyite/Stasi state. But by the same token this sort of unpleasantness really should not be welcomed under any circumstances in a peaceful (and civilised) society.

If he wants to preach an end to Western society, values and its citizens, he is perfectly within his rights to fk off to Iran or any other state that might accept such behaviour (and accept him and his family). Otherwise he should STFU and the law here should be well enough defined to prevent him spreading his malice without sanction.

Before anyone notes "but where do you stop and where do you decide where the line is drawn", the law does this all the time (speed limits, drinking age, shop opening hours FFS. I'm sure it would be possible to address preaching death to our citizens!).

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 6th October 2012
quotequote all
You misunderstand me. I was commenting on a post above that took the line that anyone posting here a doubt as to the extradition of Ahmad "must have an agenda".

On the wider point, however, I think that our society is strong enough to tolerate people spouting rants against it. Positive incitement to commit crimes is criminalised, but general ranting , and hate speech generally, should be tolerated, I think. I would apply this to all forms of hate speech, including that of the BNP, holocaust denial, and other such nonsense.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 6th October 19:21