and please use their services
Abu Hamza
- Thread starter arclight
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 11,633
- Name
- Doug
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, it badly needs reforming. There is no need why such a long time is required to deal with such things.
braveboy2012
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,454
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- No
My new joke of the day!
Just watched mock the week and they said if he gets the chair he can hold his
Terrywoodenpic
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,172
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 6,217
- Name
- Ian D J
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That's Qatada, not Hamza!
(the cartoon, I mean)
Hehe, told you politics has never been my strong point. :-D
dexter35yrs
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 673
- Name
- derek
- Edit My Images
- Yes
love the pic - about time we got rid of this hate preacher 
TG.
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,905
- Name
- Tel
- Edit My Images
- No
Probably down to the much loved Tony Blair human rights act, which he described as one of the highlights of his career, nothing to do of course with the fact, that his wife Cherie is a human rights defence lawyer, and had made thousands from it, mmm
Yes i would love to see him wandering around in his newly acquired orange jump suit, brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "you've been tangoed" lol.
On a more serious note, this is something that has infuriated me for years, not only the millions it has cost in legal fees, but also the amount of benefits this piece of scum has claimed over the years, and by all accounts his Mrs will still be claiming, isn't it strange how, all these hate preachers the likes of Hamza, Qatada, Choudrey, and their other scum followers, can't stand this country, yet revel in it's benefits system, i don't think one of them have done a days work in their lives, so when Cameron and Osbourne, talk about their shake up in the benefits system, i think these are the people they should start with, and if they all so love their beloved sharia law, maybe they could be picked up by another RAF carrier, and be dropped into the middle of somewhere like Iran, where they can revel in it, whether they was born in this country or not !
onomatopoeia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,430
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Probably down to the much loved Tony Blair human rights act, which he described as one of the highlights of his career, nothing to do of course with the fact, that his wife Cherie is a human rights defence lawyer, and had made thousands from it, mmm
You might as well blame Winston Churchill.
The HRA grants no new rights that a UK resident would not otherwise have. In the majority of cases it makes them easier and cheaper to enforce.
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes but...Probably down to the much loved Tony Blair human rights act, which he described as one of the highlights of his career, nothing to do of course with the fact, that his wife Cherie is a human rights defence lawyer, and had made thousands from it, mmm
Yes i would love to see him wandering around in his newly acquired orange jump suit, brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "you've been tangoed" lol.
On a more serious note, this is something that has infuriated me for years, not only the millions it has cost in legal fees, but also the amount of benefits this piece of scum has claimed over the years, and by all accounts his Mrs will still be claiming, isn't it strange how, all these hate preachers the likes of Hamza, Qatada, Choudrey, and their other scum followers, can't stand this country, yet revel in it's benefits system, i don't think one of them have done a days work in their lives, so when Cameron and Osbourne, talk about their shake up in the benefits system, i think these are the people they should start with, and if they all so love their beloved sharia law, maybe they could be picked up by another RAF carrier, and be dropped into the middle of somewhere like Iran, where they can revel in it, whether they was born in this country or not !
Even if we think that he shouldn't have received benefits and even if we think that we should stop the benefits (including a very expensive house) that his wife is living in, what about his many children?
Whether or not they were born in this country and are British citizens, what have they done wrong? Should they be thrown out on the street and left to starve?
This is the problem. Even the guilty have the same human rights as the totally innocent, and we don't actually know that they are guilty until the highest Court of the land has confirmed that they are. And even if they are guilty, their children shouldn't be made to suffer because of it. It just ain't easy...
TG.
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,905
- Name
- Tel
- Edit My Images
- No
Nothing yet, but give them time.
His sons sadly don't need any time. They seem to be "just like Dad"
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1137123.ece
TG.
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,905
- Name
- Tel
- Edit My Images
- No
I rest my case :annoyed:
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be fair to Blair, which sticks in my throat, he is claiming credit where it isn't due. The HRA was imposed on us by Europe. Of course it was to his advantage, due to what his Mrs does for a living, and no doubt he has lived well as a result.
However it can't be doubted that it is a much abused piece of legislation, and one which keeps a lot of lawyers of both breeds in beer and fags, while at the same time not really doing anything for the 'human rights' of most.
onomatopoeia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,430
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well....
We were already signatories to the ECHR (a convention from the Council of Europe, nothing to do with the EU) that provided all of the rights in the HRA, indeed we were one of the original signatories and it was largely British lawyers that drafted the convention after WWII. It wasn't imposed on us at all, it was "us" that had the idea in the first place (Winston Churchill was one of the driving forces behind bringing it about after the end of the war, hence my earlier reference to him).
However these rights were not present in any UK statute so cases had to be heard in Strasbourg at the court set up by signatories to the convention for this purpose. The passing of HRA meant that cases can be heard in the senior UK courts, with final appeals going to Strasbourg, where there is an appeal case to argue (most do not now go that far). This has generally reduced costs and the time taken for cases to be heard, although in the Abu Hamza case it has taken a very long time as his lawyers pursued every possible legal angle and appeal.
It should be remembered that the ECHR and HRA limit the power of the state by granting rights to the people and cases arise where the state exceeds its powers and infringes the rights of its citizens. This does not affect interactions between individuals, the normal criminal law is there to deal with that.
I'm all in favour of stuff the places limits on the power of the state and its employees. We have a long tradition of legislation in this mould, going back to Henry I's coronation charter in 1100.
Bernie174
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,719
- Name
- Bernie
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not sure I agree with you.
I certainly didn't say it was imposed by the EU, I said, Europe, a different thing.
Once the charter became adopted by Europe, we had no option but to incorporate it into UK law, which as you say it wasn't previously. But by incorporating it, it obviously became UK legislation.
There is a great difference therefore between the agreement of a long dead Government to a charter, and that charter being UK law.
because there was no test of public opinion in the UK on the subject, and EU Law meaning we had no option but to introduce legislation, it was imposed.
Granted the route was available previously, but at cost, which disqualified the spurious cases where people used the charter to their own ends, rather than out of a need to protect themselves from oppression.
Hanza being a good case, the man is evil, and the cause of his own problems. Instead of taking responsibility for his own actions, which should be a human duty, he has used the rights conferred by a state he clearly detests to try and evade his responsibility.
Interesting in Shier (Yes, I know it spelt wrongly), he would have not had the same rights.
A classic case of hypocrisy that only served to make some lawyers rich at the cost of the UK tax payer. A shame our right not to be fleeced isn't in the Charter on human rights!
I certainly didn't say it was imposed by the EU, I said, Europe, a different thing.
Once the charter became adopted by Europe, we had no option but to incorporate it into UK law, which as you say it wasn't previously. But by incorporating it, it obviously became UK legislation.
There is a great difference therefore between the agreement of a long dead Government to a charter, and that charter being UK law.
because there was no test of public opinion in the UK on the subject, and EU Law meaning we had no option but to introduce legislation, it was imposed.
Granted the route was available previously, but at cost, which disqualified the spurious cases where people used the charter to their own ends, rather than out of a need to protect themselves from oppression.
Hanza being a good case, the man is evil, and the cause of his own problems. Instead of taking responsibility for his own actions, which should be a human duty, he has used the rights conferred by a state he clearly detests to try and evade his responsibility.
Interesting in Shier (Yes, I know it spelt wrongly), he would have not had the same rights.
A classic case of hypocrisy that only served to make some lawyers rich at the cost of the UK tax payer. A shame our right not to be fleeced isn't in the Charter on human rights!
onomatopoeia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,430
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I was specific about CoE vs EU because the use of "Europe" is completely non-specific and something certain sections of the media are guilty of doing, leaving it to their readership to incorrectly infer it is the EU whenever they use "Europe".
Quite. Which is why we are better than him and all he stands for.
Quite. Which is why we are better than him and all he stands for.
new2me
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,925
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Hugh Jarse
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,968
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
New2Me
Who are you talking about?
Do you mean Abu Qatada? The thread is about Abu Hamza - who has been gone from the Uk a good while now!
Acetone if you check the time/date of New2me's quote you will see that is old news and there are 2 different Abu so called hatemonger "clerics"
Accuracy please.
Last edited:
new2me
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,925
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Apologies. I put Qatada in the search field and didn't bother checking ... first post referred to a 'hook' so I went with it
POAH
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
the court didn't he said he would go and understandable too. would you want to go to a court where evidence against you was gained by
torture.
acetone
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,327
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry, I just saw it as new post, didn't realise posted to a year old thread, and with Qatada being in the news today I expected it to be about him.
I don't think they are "so called" hatemonger, I think it's a fact that they are.
Last edited: