Human rights.

[nick]

That's a pretty disingenuous interpretation, but if you want to couch it in those terms, fine - legislation should be tested against the ECHR when written, and if judged compliant it should not be possible to override individual judgements made under that law on the basis that they are in breach of the ECHR.

 

The final testing of legislation does not occur in parliament, but in the courts, therefore it is not possible to fully test it at the time it is written. Also law has to be applied to a set of facts, it is impossible to test all possible facts prior to laws being passed. That is just a part of the rule of law, to which we are all subject.

 

Unfortunately, no matter what any individual thinks about any individual case the judges are the ones that must make the final decision under our constitutional arrangements.

 

No matter how "evil" Qatada or anyone else may be judged in the court of public opinion, or in the view of any minister, or any press proprietor I am content with that arrangement.

[Worms]

The final testing of legislation does not occur in parliament, but in the courts, therefore it is not possible to fully test it at the time it is written. Also law has to be applied to a set of facts, it is impossible to test all possible facts prior to laws being passed. That is just a part of the rule of law, to which we are all subject.

 

Unfortunately, no matter what any individual thinks about any individual case the judges are the ones that must make the final decision under our constitutional arrangements.

 

No matter how "evil" Qatada or anyone else may be judged in the court of public opinion, or in the view of any minister, or any press proprietor I am content with that arrangement.

But, the "rule of law" has been changed by different bodies with different laws...His own country found him guilty!

 

There is just no consistency and certainly no absolutes here at all. It just shows how useless half of these laws are.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Worms

[chesters1]

Cant say hes ever done anything to me personally nor most people ,he says stuff lots of people say stuff its not like doing stuff .

Has he winked at your kids suggestively ,talked about his puppies and to see them ,sent your mrs pictures of his todger or asked to see yours?

He just says stuff the dangerous ones are those that act on them the realy dangerous ones act on what they think he thinks about or says the really really dangerous ones are those pointing at him while doing far far more bad things and hoping you dont spot it

Edited March 29, 2013 by chesters1

[Phone]

Cory,

 

You scare me

 

1629: Salem is settled.

1641: English law makes witchcraft a capital crime.

1684: England declares that the colonies may not self-govern.

1688: Following an argument with laundress Goody Glover, Martha Goodwin, 13, begins exhibiting bizarre behavior. Days later her younger brother and two sisters exhibit similar behavior. Glover is arrested and tried for bewitching the Goodwin children.

 

Worms,

 

Establishing "his rights" under law whilst seeking asylum is what this is all about. I don't think there is any disagreement the guy is a douche bag.

[nick]

But, the "rule of law" has been changed by different bodies with different laws...His own country found him guilty!

 

There is just no consistency and certainly no absolutes here at all. It just shows how useless half of these laws are.

 

No, the "Rule of Law" is not about any specific law, it is an underpinning theory, Wikipedia have a good definition:

 

The rule of law is the "supremacy of regular power as opposed to arbitrary power.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

It is arbitrary power that we should be afraid of, not the protection being afforded to one man (how ever reviled) by a simple set of principle enshrined in law.

Edited March 29, 2013 by nick

[chesters1]

The douche bags are those exploiting the law to make vast sums out of it ,and bad lawmakers making it possible to do so

As a sovereign nation we simply say foreigners (choose how far back you go)have no rights ,full stop and heres a ticket to hell or wherever and bugger everyone else

I have been abroad a few times and canot ever remember customs giving me a sack full of rights on coming back ,they just dont exist because as its my country the bag should be big enough to notice

Edited March 29, 2013 by chesters1

[Worms]

 

No, the "Rule of Law" is not about any specific law, it is an underpinning theory, Wikipedia have a good definition:

 

The rule of law is the "supremacy of regular power as opposed to arbitrary power.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

It is arbitrary power that we should be afraid of, not the protection being afforded to one man (how ever reviled) by a simple set of principle enshrined in law.

Sorry Nick, you don't understand now.

 

Jordan's law is not arbitrary to Jordan. UK law is not arbitrary to the UK. But, another law can over-rule our respective laws.

 

Are you saying that in the UK the rule of law is arbitrary and not based on "supremacy of regular power"?

[Andrew]

The law is an ass !

And never a truer word said.

[nick]

Sorry Nick, you don't understand now.

 

Jordan's law is not arbitrary to Jordan. UK law is not arbitrary to the UK. But, another law can over-rule our respective laws.

 

Are you saying that in the UK the rule of law is arbitrary and not based on "supremacy of regular power"?

 

Qatada is in the UK.

 

Jordanian law is a total irrelevance to this discussion.

 

If we allow Qatada to be deported to Jordan we will not be following UK law, thus we will not be operating according to the rule of law. Rather we will be operating under arbitrary rule.

 

Now please listen carefully!

 

Every single decision made in the due legal process of the case of Abu Qatada in the UK has been decided by the courts under English law. Some decisions have been made with due regard to ECHR (as enshrined in UK Law).

 

Jordanian law is not relevant, other than that it might inform English courts decisions, but they are not implementing Jordanian law.

 

Abu Qatada, the whole sorry bundle of him is entitled to every protection available to every other Human Being in the UK.

 

If he was to be somehow differentiated from other UK human beings that opens the door to other UK human beings being treated differently - that is Arbitrary power. That is the dangerous path down which we must never ever venture. If we do then every single one of us should be very afraid,

[Phone]

Nick, Worms,

 

This has become a bit eristic.

 

Phone