Abu Qatada released from Long Lartin jai

  morddwyd 20:47 13 Feb 2012

The Government is reported to be "appalled" at this decision.

Why, for God's sake?

They're the ones who make the laws which permit his release.

And don't tell me about human rights legislation.

That remit only runs here with the agreement of the British Government.

  Forum Editor 22:24 13 Feb 2012

**"And don't tell me about human rights legislation. That remit only runs here with the agreement of the British Government."**

So, you would suggest what - that we act in defiance of the European Court of Human Rights, is that what you would do?

I can hardly think that there is a single right-thinking person in this country who isn't horrified by what has happened with regard to this detestable man. He's a threat to our national security as long as he remains on British soil, and the government knows that better than we do.

They - the government - will use any legal means possible to get Abu Qatada out of our country; of that I'm quite sure. David Cameron knows only too well the extent of public feeling about the man. That he's still here is the fault of a European court which has betrayed us, and betrayed the spirit of the European Convention on Human Rights. It's a total disgrace, but you don't demonstrate the validity of your case by openly defying the ruling of the European court. You do it by legal means, and that, I'm sure, is what is being worked on as we speak.

  ams4127 22:33 13 Feb 2012


I read in the Times a couple of days ago that France, Germany and Denmark have all ignored the European Court of Human Rights and sent undesirables back to their country of origin.

Perhaps it is time we stood up for ourselves.

  Forum Editor 22:54 13 Feb 2012


The court has come in for increasing criticism over some of its judgements,and at the way it concerns itself with relatively minor cases instead of concentrating on matters of international importance. We, in partnership with Switzerland are currently involved in a challenge to the court's authority over its decision that we should allow convicted criminals to vote whilst serving a prison sentence.

The real issue is that the court appears to act as though human rights are absolute, regardless of the circumstances surrounding individual cases. It's plainly a nonsense that we should be compelled to act contrary to the interests of our national security because a group of judges sitting in Strasbourg have lost the plot. It's not, however, a complete justification for openly defying the court's ruling. If we all went about doing that we would be in a state of total chaos - we either believe in the rule of law or we don't. You can't run a decent society on the basis that you feel free to disregard an international court's ruling when you don't like it.

  morddwyd 07:41 14 Feb 2012

"So, you would suggest what - that we act in defiance of the European Court of Human Rights, is that what you would do?"

No, we simply repeal the law which allows it to overrule our own courts, something, like so many other things (moderating H&S, cutting business red tape) which Cameron has vowed to do but hasn't.

Many countries manage a pretty reasonable human rights record without recourse to Strasbourg.

  Quickbeam 07:59 14 Feb 2012

It'll never get the respect or credibility of the general public as long as national interests are sidelined in favour of what are perceived as public enemies, and trivial cases such as a prisoners human right to watch the TV channel of their choice in a prison common room keep hitting the headlines.

I agree as a civilised society we need something like it, but as it is now, it's been hi-jacked by the disorientated logic of criminals, lawyers and judges that have lost sight of it's original purpose.

The human rights act needs a radical rethink as to what exactly it is, what nations require of it rather than what a griping criminal wants. And when ruling decisions are made, that they have some basic common sense applied to them that favours national security and the rights of the law abiding first.

Then we'll have a Human Rights act that will be accepted by most.

  morddwyd 10:36 14 Feb 2012

It doesn't matter, in this context, if he is dangerous or not.

A verdict was reached by a British court.

That verdict was overruled.

The Government is "appalled".

But the Government makes the law under which the verdict was overruled.

  john bunyan 13:19 14 Feb 2012

The problem about trying him here seems to be that this country will not as yet allow evidence collected by GCHQ (intercepts) or other covert surveilance to be used in evidence for fear of the methods becoming known and the bad guys developing counter measures. I believe that some countries - eg USA - do allow such evidence. Maybe this is an area that could be explored further. Also there are ongoing talks with Jordan in the hope they can put together a case that excludes evidence obtained by "torture".

  john bunyan 16:20 14 Feb 2012

Maybe, maybe not, maybe in part. It was well known at one time that the GCHQ did things in the USA that NASA did not, or rather were not allowed to do, and vice versa. They swapped info. These agencies and others have always felt that the information gained in a covert way was too valuable in toto than to reveal methods, however old, in one particular case. I think we cannot discuss this much further in an open forum!!

  bremner 17:00 14 Feb 2012

NASA I think you mean NSA

  john bunyan 17:02 14 Feb 2012

bremner. Yes, quite right thanks.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

OnePlus 5 review

See the work of famous artists playing with toys

iPad Pro 10.5in (2017) review

Comment faire une capture d’écran sur un Mac ?