Abu Hazma

[sparky]

After seeing the no nonsense treatment of this scumbag in the US, Our great leader Cameron has just announced that WE should be doing more to extradite people like Hazma." HELLO " is this not what the British public have been calling for over the last years, while Cameron and his useless bunch have sat on their backsides and none nothing about it during their term of office, much preferring to concentrate on things like Gay marriage that few people  care about one way or another

[avalonmpk2]

Not really fair Sparky, Theresa May tried and tried, but the likes of the chucklebutties and the'uman rights brigade, foiled all attempts. So I suggest the following, with the success of many internet campaigns in mind:
List the offences, give the courts verdict, and let all adult vote kick 'em out or lock 'em up and through away the key. I know many ex-servicemen who would willing use their skill to set this up and NOT charge the country for it they would see it as a DUTY. Once again, the old hot potato: its should be duty before rights without exception

[sparky]

Avalon, The way I see it, if the Home Secretary and/or government is being prevented in getting shot of  scum like Hamza, foreign criminals, and the other various dregs of society from other countries ,  by  the system in place, then you change the system, and the only people that can do that is the government of the day, and if that means kicking the human rights act into touch, or whatever else, then you do it, you don't waffle on about it.
You do not wait for another country to show up this countries incompetence, and then have our leader meekly announce we must do something to improve our system, and at the same time knowing that he is going to do s*d all

[Shelton]

Its not that easy though. While Cameron is hamstrung with a coalition Govt the Lib Dems are not going to agree to binning the Human rights act, only a Govt with a huge majority is going to be able to do that, and even then they would have to jump through some legal loopholes to do it. Removing the European courts as a last resort of appeal would help, but that would mean renegotiation or leaving the Eu.

[sparky]

Shelton, Exactly, which is why I will be on the polling station doorstep early tomorrow morning to vote UKIP.

[stellamaris]

I don't want to be pedantic here but what the hell, I will be.  The Human Rights thing was in place before we joined the common market.  If anyone in this country, and other countries, felt that their own courts were breaching Human Rights they could go to Strasbourg for the final decision and any country who had signed up to this had to respect that decision.  It could take years.   All the later treaty was supposed to do was to enable individuals to have their cases heard in their own country. 


I know it has become extremely detailed and complicated, and really bad people manipulate it, but personally I would hate to withdraw from it completely.  The good in the system probably just about outweighs the bad. Where it goes wrong, and gets silly I think, is in the interpretation and interference where there is no real injustice or torture.


Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Granny49]

Good post Stellamaris.

[stellamaris]

Ta!Granny.   I wish someone else could put it more succinctly though.

[Johned]

Whatever this fellow may have done or no; we are ever ready to extradite people to the US but it rarely happens the other way around!  Witness the IRA terrorist suspects skulking in that benighted country, we have tried to get our hands on to stand trial here.

[Granny49]

Ta!Granny.   I wish someone else could put it more succinctly though.

I can't help.  I don't really do succinct

[avalonmpk2]

Stuff the human rights act! What we need is a common decency/fair play, act based on common sense! Black and white a thing is either wright or wrong!

[Gael]

Whatever this fellow may have done or no; we are ever ready to extradite people to the US but it rarely happens the other way around!  Witness the IRA terrorist suspects skulking in that benighted country, we have tried to get our hands on to stand trial here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/18/obama-uk-extradition_n_2437886.html

[cheddar-caveman]

The Human Rights thing was in place before we joined the common market.  If anyone in this country, and other countries, felt that their own courts were breaching Human Rights they could go to Strasbourg for the final decision and any country who had signed up to this had to respect that decision.  It could take years.   All the later treaty was supposed to do was to enable individuals to have their cases heard in their own country. 
I know it has become extremely detailed and complicated, and really bad people manipulate it, but personally I would hate to withdraw from it completely.  The good in the system probably just about outweighs the bad. Where it goes wrong, and gets silly I think, is in the interpretation and interference where there is no real injustice or torture.

Indeed! All countries had some sort of Human Rights legislation prior to the EU, but with the EU came "The European Convention on Human Rights" and it is this document that the Abu Hamza's of this world spout when they get caught. It is a way OTT document and it is this that we need to opt out of so that we regain control of our courts.
Yes there has to be some protection of ones basic human rights but not to the extent this document drafted back in 1953 goes. One of it's classic blunders I think is that it gives the criminal more protection than the victim, crazy!
I have said before, a person entering my property with intent to commit a crime leaves their "Hume Rights" an the pavement, and I'll take the consequences! I can probably still hit a six with my trusty old cricket bat 

[Aduk]

I don't want to be pedantic here but what the hell, I will be.  The Human Rights thing was in place before we joined the common market.  If anyone in this country, and other countries, felt that their own courts were breaching Human Rights they could go to Strasbourg for the final decision and any country who had signed up to this had to respect that decision.  It could take years.   All the later treaty was supposed to do was to enable individuals to have their cases heard in their own country. 


I know it has become extremely detailed and complicated, and really bad people manipulate it, but personally I would hate to withdraw from it completely.  The good in the system probably just about outweighs the bad. Where it goes wrong, and gets silly I think, is in the interpretation and interference where there is no real injustice or torture.


Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This.

[Taxedtothehilt]

This.

You've got me this time Ad, is this some sort of code