Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again

[jmorgan]

garyhun said:

jmorgan said:

Why could we not get him into court over here then?

Ooman rights innit!

Probably. Sorry state of affairs that we have to dump him on anothers legal system. Bet the ex colonists will not miss that point.

[onyx39]

I suppose the death penalty is out of the question?

[KFC]

Einion Yrth said:

This way he gets locked up and I don't have to pay. Win, win.

If you look at his legal bills alone for the last 10 years, you wouldn't say you didn't have to pay. Then add in all his and his families benefits its not a very pretty picture is it?

[Einion Yrth]

KFC said:

Einion Yrth said:

This way he gets locked up and I don't have to pay. Win, win.

If you look at his legal bills alone for the last 10 years, you wouldn't say you didn't have to pay. Then add in all his and his families benefits its not a very pretty picture is it?

It's still less than if he were locked up over here though, isn't it?

[KFC]

Einion Yrth said:

It's still less than if he were locked up over here though, isn't it?

If we'd just locked up originally? I'm guessing it wouldn't, as he doesn't look particularly healthy and wouldn't expect him to live for the next 20 years. His legal bill is apparently in 7 figures, and that was in 2012 - it can only have gone up since. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2229000/Ab...

[anonymous-user]

scorp said:

Chlamydia said:

Well that news made my day.

Makes for a refreshing change to see a Western legal system work for us instead of against us. Shame we didn't have the balls/inclination to jail him in the UK.

Hamza WAS convicted and jailed in the UK. He was extradited after serving his prison sentence here.

[anonymous-user]

Einion Yrth said:

scorp said:

Chlamydia said:

Well that news made my day.

Makes for a refreshing change to see a Western legal system work for us instead of against us. Shame we didn't have the balls/inclination to jail him in the UK.

This way he gets locked up and I don't have to pay. Win, win.

Quite.

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

garyhun said:

jmorgan said:

Why could we not get him into court over here then?

Ooman rights innit!

Probably. Sorry state of affairs that we have to dump him on anothers legal system. Bet the ex colonists will not miss that point.

Again, your assumptions are incorrect. Look it up: Hamza was prosecuted in the UK.

The death penalty is not legally possible in this case as no one can be extradited from the UK to face a death penalty.

[jmorgan]

Breadvan72 said:

jmorgan said:

garyhun said:

jmorgan said:

Why could we not get him into court over here then?

Ooman rights innit!

Probably. Sorry state of affairs that we have to dump him on anothers legal system. Bet the ex colonists will not miss that point.

Again, your assumptions are incorrect. Look it up: Hamza was prosecuted in the UK.

The death penalty is not legally possible in this case as no one can be extradited from the UK to face a death penalty.

I was about to reply after reading your earlier reply and I am in error. Obviously I have a perceived idea of what has happened to what actually happened.

[Justices]

hornetrider said:

jsc15 said:

Even Bubba's got standards!

One things for sure, Bubba won't be asking for a reach around.

[anonymous-user]

The UK security services have repeatedly resisted moves supported by many MPs (and even by Liberty) for phone tap evidence to be made admissible in UK Courts, but at present such evidence remains inadmissible. This limited the charges that could be pursued against Hamza here, although he was still potted on some charges. In the US, phone tap evidence is admissible.

[fourpointsixgt]

I bet Terresa's speech writers have been up all night draughting a carefully worded, blame free (apart from the previous government bit) speech to feed to the press.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Again, your assumptions are incorrect. Look it up: Hamza was prosecuted in the UK.

The death penalty is not legally possible in this case as no one can be extradited from the UK to face a death penalty.

I was being facetious with my Wailesque statement.

However, is it not true that much of the length (drawn out) of the appeal process for AH was due to use of Human Rights Laws?

[anonymous-user]

Some of it, yes, but the real Wailism comes if we then decide to abandon standards that have been developed with some difficulty over the last several centuries because of a few cases involving unpopular figures invoking ancient rights (human rights law is a British invention and neither new fangled nor European in origin). Rights have to be for baddies as well as for goodies, as otherwise they aren't rights.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Some of it, yes, but the real Wailism comes if we then decide to abandon standards that have been developed with some difficulty over the last several centuries because of a few cases involving unpopular figures invoking ancient rights (human rights law is a British invention and neither new fangled nor European in origin). Rights have to be for baddies as well as for goodies, as otherwise they aren't rights.

All understood!

[anonymous-user]

Tsk! Not very NPE!

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Tsk! Not very NPE!

I don't have enough money for even the 5 minute argument this morning.

Might do after a few hours work; then I can slag off the Ooman Rights malarky like a good 'un.

[anonymous-user]

Cameron has predictably jumped on the bandwagon. Most politicians know Jack about our constitution and care less.

[jmorgan]

It all just seems a faff and somehow a farce for us. Somewhere I have missed his punishment (or not). But then I suppose you have to sit in on all the evidence. I was chatting to a reporter once about a trail and they had to be careful on what was said on a particular case. It was all out in the open for those in the public gallery to hear but it was very gruesome and that was the bit they had to be careful on. The upshot was what we hear on telly is not necessarily the true flavour in court.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Breadvan72 said:

Some of it, yes, but the real Wailism comes if we then decide to abandon standards that have been developed with some difficulty over the last several centuries because of a few cases involving unpopular figures invoking ancient rights (human rights law is a British invention and neither new fangled nor European in origin).

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the guys who experienced "extraordinary rendition" to Guantanamo Bay and who underwent "enhanced interrogation" with the full cooperation and, it seems, participation of UK.