Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again

[BlackLabel]

Abu Hamza quoted in a 2006 Guardian piece.

article said:

Referring to England as a "toilet," he said that "a person who comes to a toilet, he should be very keen to go out of it quickly because it smells and changes the human's nature and you can't really worship very good in a toilet."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/13/terrorism.world

He's now begging to come back to this 'toilet'.

[Rovinghawk]

Breadvan72 said:

I think that the guy is a scumbag and that his ideas are detestable, but isn't this stuff overkill? Deprive him of his liberty, keep him off the internet, and don't let him publish stuff. Anything more than that is merely vindictive and demeaning to a society which is objectively better than the one Hamza wishes for.

He earned his current position; it's not really a scenario where there is much room for error or ambiguity.

[jdw100]

BlackLabel said:

That's disgusting. Feel sorry for the people who have to work there.

If only they had a lot of people in that place with time on their hands. They could be given cleaning materials and told to make it spotless.

[anonymous-user]

Burwood said:

Most highly paid lawyers are nothing more than advocates for criminal enterprise. I make no judgement on our resident BV, who walks the line

I hate to shatter tabloid illusions, but most criminal lawyers don't make enough money to get the average PH company director out of bed. Lawyers who are well paid tend to act for big corporates. Whether that is criminal enterprise depends on your point of view.

[PRTVR]

Breadvan72 said:

Burwood said:

Most highly paid lawyers are nothing more than advocates for criminal enterprise. I make no judgement on our resident BV, who walks the line

I hate to shatter tabloid illusions, but most criminal lawyers don't make enough money to get the average PH company director out of bed. Lawyers who are well paid tend to act for big corporates. Whether that is criminal enterprise depends on your point of view.

You keep saying this but the large amounts of money has to go somewhere, why did it only take 5 weeks in America to sort the problem of Abu Hamza, what is wrong with our system that makes it so expensive.

[anonymous-user]

Define so expensive? Picking out one mishandled and by no means typical case doesn't analyse the whole system. Most of the current defects in the system can be linked to under funding with consequent inefficiency. See for example the rubbish disclosure of evidence system that when mishandled almost led to an innocent man being jailed for rape.

[PRTVR]

Most people would consider 3m for one case as expenses, especially as the Americans dealt with the problem quickly, but then I guess it's all to do with your point of view.

[anonymous-user]

PRTVR said:

Most people would consider 3m for one case as expenses, especially as the Americans dealt with the problem quickly, but then I guess it's all to do with your point of view.

They're not like for like comparisons.

The Americans were looking to run a trial.

We were thrashing out legal issues through various layers of courts.

It becomes expensive for the Americans when they have to go through their layers of courts, too.

[Crackie]

Breadvan72 said:

I think that the guy is a scumbag and that his ideas are detestable, but isn't this stuff overkill? Deprive him of his liberty, keep him off the internet, and don't let him publish stuff. Anything more than that is merely vindictive and demeaning to a society which is objectively better than the one Hamza wishes for.

What would you change BV ? His cell's size, shape, 'facilities' ? His exercise room ? The length of the exercise period. ?

[anonymous-user]

Cell ok but give it a bigger window. I would allow some monitored social interaction with other prisoners as isolation is inhumane. Books on approval. Strict limits on anything that could involve proseletysing.


This guy is a huge hate figure for reasons that may be enhanced by his appearance. He is not even the worst Islamic criminal by a long way.

His case was grossly mishandled due to Home Office Incompetence exploited by Hamza for propaganda purposes. Ditto Qatada.

[PRTVR]

La Liga said:

PRTVR said:

Most people would consider 3m for one case as expenses, especially as the Americans dealt with the problem quickly, but then I guess it's all to do with your point of view.

They're not like for like comparisons.

The Americans were looking to run a trial.

We were thrashing out legal issues through various layers of courts.

It becomes expensive for the Americans when they have to go through their layers of courts, too.

But the Americans did the job quickly, avoiding all the time wasting and costly diversions and ended up with the result most people considered right,
what did we achieve with all the time in British courts ?

[anonymous-user]

The US conducted one trial. In the UK Hamza exhausted all internal appeals and then tried and failed in the ECtHR. Due process can be slow, but abandon due process and people luke Hamza win. In the event, he lost. Good.

[anonymous-user]

On a wider note, the US criminal justice systems (State and to a lesser extent Federal) are more error prone that the imperfect but still just about functioning UK systems.

[PRTVR]

Are you saying the US abandoned due process and you are happy ?
Or are our due processes are over complicated,
some appear to be using our wonderful legal system against us at our expense, most people think it's wrong.

Hamza won by using our systems against us, it took the Americans to sort it out.

Edited by PRTVR on Tuesday 19th December 08:50

[anonymous-user]

I said nothing that could be remotely construed as that. The US applied due process at a trial. The UK applied due process in various (non trial) procedures, and the ECtHR applied due process in its procedures. It may be that you don't think that due process should be extended to people you disapprove of, but a rule of law based liberal democracy gives rights to baddies as well as goodies - that's how it works.

Hamza lost. big time. He tried to avoid being sent to the US. The UK legal system sent him to the US.

[anonymous-user]

I love the idea that being extradited and then locked up in a Supermax is "winning". I wonder what losing would look like?

[98elise]

Breadvan72 said:

Burwood said:

Most highly paid lawyers are nothing more than advocates for criminal enterprise. I make no judgement on our resident BV, who walks the line

I hate to shatter tabloid illusions, but most criminal lawyers don't make enough money to get the average PH company director out of bed. Lawyers who are well paid tend to act for big corporates. Whether that is criminal enterprise depends on your point of view.

You're not kidding. My brothers company have a planning permission issue which is going through the courts. Their legal bill is well over £250k and rising.

[PRTVR]

Breadvan72 said:

I love the idea that being extradited and then locked up in a Supermax is "winning". I wonder what losing would look like?

Losing would have been locked up in a British prison in 5 weeks all done and dusted.

Although if he wants to be in a British prison perhaps not.

[CoolHands]

I agree about the window - it’s pretty awful not being able to see outside. I wonder though if it’s because it really is a ‘supamax’ they have to make it narrow so a human physically can’t get out (or in).

[anonymous-user]

PRTVR said:

Breadvan72 said:

I love the idea that being extradited and then locked up in a Supermax is "winning". I wonder what losing would look like?

Losing would have been locked up in a British prison in 5 weeks all done and dusted.

Although if he wants to be in a British prison perhaps not.

But on the Mildenhall thread you want the (apparently non-terrorist) perp to be sent to jail in the US. Stick or twist?

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th December 09:55