The first duty of the courts is to interpret and apply the law regardless of politics.

If you start making exceptions according to public opinion etc, you are in effect introducing mob rule which damages the whole point of the law in the first place.

Don't you think that the senior judiciary have there own agenda, this decision is just their way of shoving two fingers up at government (whatever colour it is) and nothing to do with whats right.

I feel substantially more threatened by a government seeking to pick and choose which laws it adheres to as and when it feels like it than I do about a bile-spouter like Qatada who is easily ignored, patronised, belittled, whatever.

As far as conspiracy theories go, that's one of the least intelligent I've heard for some time.

One of !!!, at least it's not the worst.

Deary me.





What 'agenda' might this be? And will wearing a tinfoil hat protect me from it?



Oh - and the courts are about what's [ilawful[/i. The minute we start setting aside our laws because we feel threatened then scum like Qatada have won. Simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."



Ben Franklin

It's ok, we've got the Jordanians to sign something that says he won't be tortured any more and that they won't use evidence gained under torture against him.



No right minded judge could possibly doubt that this hastily concocted, back of an envelope agreement of convenience won't be adhered to by those lovely Jordanians.



If only the UK government put as much time and effort into getting one of their own citizens repatriated from Guantanamo, where he's being held on the basis of evidence obtained under torture.

He's been here 20 years. Why has he never been prosecuted here?

Because he hasn't done anything here that we can prosecute him for.

Thought so. But he's been in gaol for most of that time?

Why? Britain has had, throughput its history, an almost unparalleled respect for the liberties of its citizens. Why do we need European judges to tell our government how to behave?



The whole concept of the ECHR is ludicrous. It is nonsense that just because Germany cannot be trusted to stay within its borders or refrain from committing genocide that a panel of unelected foreigners, who descend from countries where traditionally liberty and democracy are alien concepts, should dictate to Britain (who along with the Americans gave freedom and democracy to Europe) that we cannot deport a terrorist to his country of origin.



The solution to the German problem was not to implement an ECHR that decides how the British government can deal with criminals or terrorists. Nor was the answer to create an EU federal state whereby the sovereignty of every nation in Europe is subjugated under German rule. The answer was to break Germany up. Thatcher understood this, hence her opposition to reunification.