Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
Riff Raff said:
SplatSpeed said:
kowalski655 said:
SplatSpeed said:
If the guy has "new" evidence(Oh WHAT a coincidence!) then show it to the yanks to prove your innocence, not us. Hamza's mental health is also said to be getting worse.How is this grounds for appeal? A faked breakdown is always handy for fooling idiot Judges. He was always bat s
t crazy anyway Carry on
turbobloke said:
Digga said:
thinfourth2 said:
He will still be here for christmas
Struggling to pull crackers. My heart bleeds for him.
Breadvan72 said:
I agree, and so does the Lord Chief Justice.
Two points:
(1) Until 2011, Hamza was in prison serving a sentence for various offences.
(2) He has been ordered to pay the costs of some of his cases.
Point 2 is interesting.Two points:
(1) Until 2011, Hamza was in prison serving a sentence for various offences.
(2) He has been ordered to pay the costs of some of his cases.
How does it work, ie is there any reasonable chance of him paying anything or will it just be a case of him being on benefits so we'll see nothing back?
whoami said:
Point 2 is interesting.
How does it work, ie is there any reasonable chance of him paying anything or will it just be a case of him being on benefits so we'll see nothing back?
Didn't he buy a house, for cash, for £250k or so while in prison, as a 'buy to let investment'? How does it work, ie is there any reasonable chance of him paying anything or will it just be a case of him being on benefits so we'll see nothing back?
I suspect the man has quite a lot of money, or supporters who are willing to put up a lot of money, and agree that he should pay his costs. However, given the astronomical cost he has been to the taxpayer over the last 10 years, I suspect any money they can claw back will be only a tiny proportion of it.
Oli.
He had some assets including a house. I do not know if any of the costs ordered have been recovered.
I did a case against Qatada which centered on a large amount of money in mixed denominations found under his bed. His benefits were stopped.
He claimed that he could not put money in a bank, because that would be usurious and un-Islamic, but he couldn't explain why he had several credit cards in various names.
I did a case against Qatada which centered on a large amount of money in mixed denominations found under his bed. His benefits were stopped.
He claimed that he could not put money in a bank, because that would be usurious and un-Islamic, but he couldn't explain why he had several credit cards in various names.
Breadvan72 said:
He had some assets including a house. I do not know if any of the costs ordered have been recovered.
I did a case against Qatada which centered on a large amount of money in mixed denominations found under his bed. His benefits were stopped.
He claimed that he could not put money in a bank, because that would be usurious and un-Islamic, but he couldn't explain why he had several credit cards in various names.
Generally speaking I dont comment on these thread for professional reasons however what I don't mind saying is that in the main, when costs are ordered, there is precious little chance of a recovery. I did a case against Qatada which centered on a large amount of money in mixed denominations found under his bed. His benefits were stopped.
He claimed that he could not put money in a bank, because that would be usurious and un-Islamic, but he couldn't explain why he had several credit cards in various names.
Indeed, when someone has has benefit of public funding, many people would be interested to find out that in the main, whilst the SSHD might well get a costs order against the Claimant/Appellant, that costs order cannot be enforced without leave of the court. This basically means that the cost benefit analysis suggests that it isnt worth taking it any further. Which believe me, is very annoying.
Of course it's tosh. Modern banking was invented in the late middle ages to circumvent the anti-usury rules applied by the Medieval Church. Bills of exchange facilitated international trade and allowed lending at interest, whilst the Pope looked the other way. The so called Sharia banks are similar dodges.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed I believe every shariah product has to be certified by clefics.Somehwat ironically when they tried to launch a retail islamic bank, it's basically been a complete failure that keeps having to have money thrown at it by gulf types.
http://www.islamic-bank.com/
To be honest it's not that different to the way if you go to Israel there are lifts with a "Sabbath mode" that mean it goes to every floor on a continuous loop. It would be work to press the button, you see.
HD Adam said:
A genuine question for Breadvan.
Doesn't there become a point in law where it's obvious that somebody is playing the system?
This has gone all the way to Strasbourg and back and now he (or his lawyers) change the argument from his human rights at risk to his mental and physical health.
If this latest challenge fails, then I presume he has the right of appeal which prolongs the process yet again.
Then what? "Oh, he's got a bit of a spot on his arse so he can't sit comfortably on the plane" Appeal time again?
If he wants to stay that bad, can they make him share a cell with this man?
Should help things along
Who is that, Mustapha Shave - an AQ mate?Doesn't there become a point in law where it's obvious that somebody is playing the system?
This has gone all the way to Strasbourg and back and now he (or his lawyers) change the argument from his human rights at risk to his mental and physical health.
If this latest challenge fails, then I presume he has the right of appeal which prolongs the process yet again.
Then what? "Oh, he's got a bit of a spot on his arse so he can't sit comfortably on the plane" Appeal time again?
If he wants to stay that bad, can they make him share a cell with this man?
Should help things along
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff