Both the New Labour and Tory governments have a total disrespect for the rule of law . It is viewed not as a code of recognised moral and ethical principle but as a political tool for social control. Hence their attitude that it does not apply to their actions and if it stands in their way it is to be changed or ignored.

Where do we stand if we just boot him out? Well we all will know that as citizens our safety and liberty depends not on any objective standard of justice but on the whym of a politician who may chooses to send us into exile simply because we have said something unpopular. If their respect for the rule of law how do you justify punishing the burglar who takes what he wants because he can.

My favourite portrait of sir anthony

as ernie knows what im thinking better than I do

I know what you post.

And it is very clear by your the references to “the Nasty Party” and the “braying old etonians and bullingdon bully boys” in your attack on Theresa May that were suggesting that had she not been a Tory she would have behaved differently. There is no evidence to back that up that claim, in fact the opposite is true.

You now claim that your references to “renditions, drone strikes, arms sales to Saudi, Bahrain, etc.” was not an attack on the Tories. Of course it wasn’t, you were in fact attacking New Labour, in your anti-Theresa May post, weren’t you ? ! 🙂

.

and lo…………after i posted that ernie just keeps repeating himself

I was thinking the same thing about you – it’s a funny old world, innit ?

Surely Theresa May is the Tory’s equivalent of John Prescott – a “token” minister. Prescott was the supposedly harmless token working class New Labour guy and Theresa May the token wearer of odd shoes. Both potentially dangerous in the sense that they held/hold positions of power, but equally both harmless as their rhetoric is pretty much always let down when it comes to execution. You have to wonder how either kept/keep their positions other than making those around them look good. Its hard to know whether contempt or pity is the correct emotion. TM’s brinkmanship re European Court of Rights will fail and once again we face the challenge of respecting law (and to link to yesterday) freedom of speech when the outcome appears uncomfortable.

Genuine question from someone who may be a bit dim – what would be the consequences if we just booted the bellend out?

Well if the rulers and creators of law ignore the laws when it suits them why shouldn’t we all.

The rule of law should apply to everyone, it is one of the main tenet’s of any society based on fairness and equality.

When we get such demonstrations of law only being applied when it suits by the very highest authorities, then it chips away at the rules by which we live and just leads to more people saying **** the law and **** the system.

MSP, yesterday you argued strongly against those who use intimidation and hatred against others (presumably even in the verbal sense) and for not bring pushed around by vile hatred. The Europen Court has described Abu Qatada as a “very dangerous man”, so presumably more of a threat to law-abiding citizens than an EDL thug. So where exactly do you/does one draw the line?

FWIW, apart from her typical false bravado May has handled this reasonably well up until this latest threat. But good for the Lib Dems for being the voice of reason here (based on news reports).

We have to respect the rule of law to avoid anarchy or goverment abuse.

Doesn’t everything Theresa May does have to be viewed through the prism of her leadership ambitions?

When Dave was having his Gay-Marriage wobble a few months ago, she was making herself very visible as a potential Tory leader. She was shamelessly positioning herself as the champion of the more bonkers, foaming-at-the-mouth, hang-em and flog em section of the party. Which seems to represent most of them, apart from Daves inner circle, to be honest.

So once you’ve set your stall out on that platform, then that’s your audience. So stuff like this is just par for the course, surely?

The difficult bit about human rights is that you have to apply them to people you despise, not pick and choose as it suits.

I’m also mindful that we’ve had about 10 years to bring a case against this bloke, and we still haven’t managed it.

Absolutely Ransos. If this bloke is the terrorist mastermind he’s supposed to be, then what does it say about the competency of our security forces that they have failed, over a ten year period, to secure enough evidence for a conviction!

You can’t just try people for being unpleasant. Which is what, if you go purely on the strength of evidence, is taking place here. Christ! half the country would be on trial at any one time if that was the case

nick1962 – Member

Abu Hamza was deported to the US wasn’t he??
I assume you mean Abu Qatada.

… who, of course, comes from Czechoslovakia…

The difficult bit about human rights is that you have to apply them to people you despise, not pick and choose as it suits.
I’m also mindful that we’ve had about 10 years to bring a case against this bloke, and we still haven’t managed it.

Very True Ransos!

Well if the rulers and creators of law ignore the laws when it suits them why shouldn’t we all.
The rule of law should apply to everyone, it is one of the main tenet’s of any society based on fairness and equality.
When we get such demonstrations of law only being applied when it suits by the very highest authorities, then it chips away at the rules by which we live and just leads to more people saying **** the law and **** the system.

Agreed!

Where do we stand if we just boot him out? Well we all will know that as citizens our safety and liberty depends not on any objective standard of justice but on the whim of a politician who may chooses to send us into exile simply because we have said something unpopular.

And this as well!

I’m no fan of Theresa May but a big supporter of efforts to get Qatada deported. Signing a new treaty with Jordon is real progress.

As for the EU convention on human rights – it’s just not working – so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

Yes, Binners, I picked the wrong token! Should have been May is the daily wail token! We really would be in trouble if she rose any further.

Agree ransos, which is why it is interesting to look back on yesterday’s thread on protesting against the far right. In that case those who opposed the use of violence, kicking out and suspension of law were treated with some interesting accusations and abuse.

MSP, yesterday you argued strongly against those who use intimidation and hatred against others (presumably even in the verbal sense) and for not bring pushed around by vile hatred. The Europen Court has described Abu Qatada as a “very dangerous man”, so presumably more of a threat to law-abiding citizens than an EDL thug. So where exactly do you/does one draw the line?

FWIW, apart from her typical false bravado May has handled this reasonably well up until this latest threat. But good for the Lib Dems for being the voice of reason here (based on news reports).

We have to respect the rule of law to avoid anarchy or goverment abuse.

I think EDL thugs are just as dangerous as Abu Qatada and his ilk, although he would be perhaps more comparable to an organiser and inciter in the EDL rather than a front line thug.

I do not differentiate between them because I am more likely to be a victim of one rather than the other based on my own social group. Unfortunately the mechanisms of authority seems more focused on muslim extremists rather than white supremacists, which is why there is a need for people to stand up and demonstrate that both should be resisted.

Besides that I am not sure what you think I suggested in resisting the EDL would be against the rule of law.

As for the EU convention on human rights – it’s just not working – so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

How?

Now testify!
Testify!
It’s right outside your door!

😆

*Goes to dig out some RATM*

Theresa May reminds me of a boy racer’s car.

Lots of noise, but little movement.

Northwind – Member

Napalm – Member

“Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past”

Now testify!
Testify!
It’s right outside your door!

This was my first thought too….. 😀

I think EDL thugs are just as dangerous as Abu Qatada and his ilk, although he would be perhaps more comparable to an organiser and inciter in the EDL rather than a front line thug.

Really? How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

Really? How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

Given that ten years on, we still haven’t prosecuted Abu Qatada, what do you suppose he has done?

Nothing much here. But we’re trying to deport him, not prosecute him.

It seems that the government is trying to enact on the will of the majority of the people in the UK.

so where do laws get amended to suit the will of the majority or are two or three judges superior in intelect to the masses and should dictate to the country how they run themselves, its politics and the will of the people v the judiciary

In my view, as its been both political persuasions trying to deport the guy, I am just a little concerned that it is the judiciary not the people who are deciding.
maybe if he had a deportaion trial by jury then the verdict would have been different a long time ago.
and again Im not up on all the facts of the law just the little I read on here and the press.

In a democracy the law is supposed to represent the will of the people. If it isn’t then you change the law.

5thElefant – Member

In a democracy the law is supposed to represent the will of the people. If it isn’t then you change the law.

True. But temporarily removing a law then reinstating it doesn’t really do that… If there’s a wholesale problem with the law, then address it but this is just evading it.

And likewise this idea of changing the law today and backdating the impact is a terrible one.

As for the EU convention on human rights – it’s just not working – so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

Seems to be working perfectly as we appear to have protected the human rights of someone we dont like. It is a clear cut example of human rights law working tbh- what you mean is you want the govt to ignore laws that inconevience them and we could end up with ridiculous phrases like “unlawful enemy combatants”, water boarding and a dubious prison on foreign lands we cannot even close despite wanting to.

How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

Do you want The home secretaires e-mail addy so you can send her the evidence so she can prosecute him for these offences ?

If this bloke is the terrorist mastermind he’s supposed to be, then what does it say about the competency of our security forces that they have failed, over a ten year period, to secure enough evidence for a conviction!

Maybe he hasn’t committed crimes here. Or maybe he’s managed to avoid providing any evidence of doing so. I suppose it might be sensible in that case to deport him to a country where he has…

Really? How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

How many beatings do EDL thugs dish out on a weekly/daily basis, how much does their behaviour and propaganda encourage racist violence?

I expect there is a more real and imminent risk of violence and even death for minorities in the UK, than there is for the white straight average looking majority suffering from terrorism.

True. But temporarily removing a law then reinstating it doesn’t really do that… If there’s a wholesale problem with the law, then address it but this is just evading it.

And likewise this idea of changing the law today and backdating the impact is a terrible one.
Sure. Pragmatic though. It deals with a law that works most of the time, to make it work all the time.

I like the French approach. Just pay the fine. Much simpler.

May’s first plan is to appeal under existing law.

The backstop, as far as I understand it, is to ensure he receives a fair trial. He is not being deported because there has, to date, been no guarantee that his trial in Jordan would involve the use of previous evidence secured by torture. Under the new treaty such evidence will be precluded and therefore his grounds for staying would disappear. That is not a retrospective change in law in this country but a change in law, most would argue for the better, in the other country.

If that fails, she will review all options including potentially looking at the ECHR but that is a couple of stages away.

Really? How many bombings have the EDL carried out? Have they even kidnapped anyone?

Not the EDL but a former member of their more moderate cousins the BNP.

David Copeland (born 15 May 1976) is an English Neo-Nazi militant who became known as the “London Nail Bomber” after a 13-day bombing campaign in April 1999 aimed at London’s black, Bangladeshi and gay communities.[2] Widely labelled a terrorist, Copeland was a former member of two far right political groups, the British National Party and then the National Socialist Movement.

Over three successive weekends between 17 and 30 April, Copeland placed homemade nail bombs, each containing up to 1,500 four-inch nails, in holdalls that he left in public spaces around London. The first bomb was placed outside the Iceland supermarket in Electric Avenue, Brixton, an area of south London with a large black population. The second was in Brick Lane in the East End of London, which has a large Bangladeshi community. The third was inside the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho’s Old Compton Street, the heart of London’s gay community. The bombs killed three people, including a pregnant woman, and injured 139, four of whom lost limbs.

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

As for the EU convention on human rights – it’s just not working – so it either needs to be reformed or we should withdraw and replace it in the UK with our own version.

Evidence?

It seems that the government is trying to enact on the will of the majority of the people in the UK.

Evidence?

Perhaps we should dispense with the legal system altogether and just let the editors of the Sun and Daily Mail rule on these matters.

As for the EU convention on human rights – it’s just not working

Can somebody please explain what this means?