His kids are not UK born, I don't think his wife has a reason to remain in the UK

About time to and with luck he will rot in prison

And with a lot of luck he will be hung. because in jail he can still radicalize the other prisoners with his devilish talk.

HMG does not deport or agree to extradite to countries that have the death penalty for the accused. Guarantee HMG has an ageement in place with Jordon. Jordanian government had previously commuted his death sentence to life in prison. When he goes though the Jordanian retrail process and found guilty, maximum will be life imprisonment. Otherwise future suspects held in UK detention will not be deported or extradited

If the original verdict stands Life with forced labour. He may be a little tired to radicalise anyone.... with any luck.

"Racist pressure groups in Britain hold demonstrations outside the house on a weekly basis between four in the afternoon and eleven in the evening. These demonstrators would scream and curse at us and at Islam," claimed the letter.

that is pretty medieval, like in the dark ages.

No, that's freedom of speech and the right to assemble.

It's pretty tame in comparison to the terrorism advocated by this man and his colleagues.

If he did something wrong he should be subjected to the law.

a racist mob hanging around the house where his wife and kids live and harass and insult his family doesn't fit my book of a modern society in the 21st century.

Continued nonsensical posting will earn you a formal warning. You are capable of checking the internet for some of his legal problems. A 30-second search of Google turned this up from Wikipedia:

In 1999, Abu Qatada was sentenced in absentia by Jordan to life imprisonment with hard labour for conspiracy to carry out terror attacks, and subsequently in 2000 to a further 25 years for his involvement in a plot to bomb tourists attending Millennium celebrations in Jordan.

There are other accusations and charges as well.

You are insinuating that terrorism performed in one place should go unpunished in another.

I am not insinuating that terrorism performed in one place should go unpunished in another.

I am aware about his legal problems in Jordan. That he is prosecuted there i already posted early in this thread but that comment somehow disappeared.

Wikipedia is mostly about the legal process of his extradition to Jordan.

But his family members did nothing. And i don't think that mob in front of his house doing it right. Justice happens in courts and not on the street.

edit:

his family members did nothing that i am aware off of and there is nothing that is could find on wikipedia.

This topic is not about the mob in front of his house. It is about Abu Qatada being deported.

Stay on topic.

About time to and with luck he will rot in prison

And with a lot of luck he will be hung. because in jail he can still radicalize the other prisoners with his devilish talk.

HMG does not deport or agree to extradite to countries that have the death penalty for the accused. Guarantee HMG has an ageement in place with Jordon. Jordanian government had previously commuted his death sentence to life in prison. When he goes though the Jordanian retrail process and found guilty, maximum will be life imprisonment. Otherwise future suspects held in UK detention will not be deported or extradited

As i have understand it the deportation was also possible because Abu Qatada agreed to it and said he will no longer appeal against his extradition, seems he is not afraid of that what awaits him in Jordan.

""My client denied all the allegations, and he asserts that his return to Jordan was out of his own free will, in order to be with his family. The procedure was carried out well, and he received good treatment."

Speaking outside the court, Abu Qatada's father Mahmoud said: "His spirits are high and the officials are good people - they might allow him to obtain bail after a few days."

BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani said Home Office officials were "incredibly relieved" after "one of the most tense weeks in the department's recent history".

"They were so concerned about the possibility that the cleric could change his mind at the last minute that they were leaving nothing to chance."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213740

I am not defending this man, but I see that the usual suspects are out in force yet again attempting to demonise all British Muslims because of the actions of one man.

MAJIC, his case and appeal has absolutely nothing to do with the EU and EU laws, no matter how much bold type and underlining you use.

Neither would any other appeal on human rights grounds.

The UK was one of the original signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights in 1953.

The convention not only predates the UK's joining what was then the EEC in 1973, but also the formation of the EEC itself in 1957!

There are 47 signatories to the ECHR, of whom 28 are also members of the EU.

You have got your facts completely wrong and are directing your ire at the wrong target.

I am glad that his case has been resolved and he is now in Jordon to face trial.

Now that Qatada's gone, hopefully the government will now persuade the Ecuadorian government to evict Assange from their London embassy so he can be sent to Sweden to stand trial for his alleged crimes.

.

About time to and with luck he will rot in prison

And with a lot of luck he will be hung. because in jail he can still radicalize the other prisoners with his devilish talk.

HMG does not deport or agree to extradite to countries that have the death penalty for the accused. Guarantee HMG has an ageement in place with Jordon. Jordanian government had previously commuted his death sentence to life in prison. When he goes though the Jordanian retrail process and found guilty, maximum will be life imprisonment. Otherwise future suspects held in UK detention will not be deported or extradited

As i have understand it the deportation was also possible because Abu Qatada agreed to it and said he will no longer appeal against his extradition, seems he is not afraid of that what awaits him in Jordan.

""My client denied all the allegations, and he asserts that his return to Jordan was out of his own free will, in order to be with his family. The procedure was carried out well, and he received good treatment."

Speaking outside the court, Abu Qatada's father Mahmoud said: "His spirits are high and the officials are good people - they might allow him to obtain bail after a few days."

BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani said Home Office officials were "incredibly relieved" after "one of the most tense weeks in the department's recent history".

"They were so concerned about the possibility that the cleric could change his mind at the last minute that they were leaving nothing to chance."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213740

Sounds like propaganda to me, don't believe he personally had any options left open to him. If media reports are accurate, why have his wife and children declined to relocate to Jordon?

So if media reports are accurate, why have his wife and children declined to relocate to Jordon?

On the humanitarian basis of keeping families together, I'm sure a wife would feel much better being close to her loving husband and the kids growing up near their daddy. This should be strongly recommended!

And with a lot of luck he will be hung. because in jail he can still radicalize the other prisoners with his devilish talk.

HMG does not deport or agree to extradite to countries that have the death penalty for the accused. Guarantee HMG has an ageement in place with Jordon. Jordanian government had previously commuted his death sentence to life in prison. When he goes though the Jordanian retrail process and found guilty, maximum will be life imprisonment. Otherwise future suspects held in UK detention will not be deported or extradited

As i have understand it the deportation was also possible because Abu Qatada agreed to it and said he will no longer appeal against his extradition, seems he is not afraid of that what awaits him in Jordan.

""My client denied all the allegations, and he asserts that his return to Jordan was out of his own free will, in order to be with his family. The procedure was carried out well, and he received good treatment."

Speaking outside the court, Abu Qatada's father Mahmoud said: "His spirits are high and the officials are good people - they might allow him to obtain bail after a few days."

BBC home affairs correspondent Dominic Casciani said Home Office officials were "incredibly relieved" after "one of the most tense weeks in the department's recent history".

"They were so concerned about the possibility that the cleric could change his mind at the last minute that they were leaving nothing to chance."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213740

Sounds like propaganda to me, don't believe he personally had any options left open to him. If media reports are accurate, why have his wife and children declined to relocate to Jordon?

family in this context might mean father, brothers and cousins who live in Jordan.

Home Secretary Theresa May said it "marks the conclusion of efforts to remove him... and I believe this will be welcomed by the British public."

Never was a truer word spoken,regardless of which Political Party you support!

is that what all those people at wimbledon were cheering for yesterday.

Do not forget the muppets who let him in back in 1993 and allowed him and his family to stay. I think that at the time that was the good old tory party who are now after 20 years claiming a good job done.

He must have felt exclusive, being flown out on his private chartered jet. All at the tax payers expense. I would have made him row a bl**ding boat to Jordan, I'm sure that most UK tax payers would also.

He must have felt exclusive, being flown out on his private chartered jet. All at the tax payers expense. I would have made him row a bl**ding boat to Jordan, I'm sure that most UK tax payers would also.

Not me, I'd have thrown him out if the aircraft at the edge of UK air space sans parachute..

He must have felt exclusive, being flown out on his private chartered jet. All at the tax payers expense. I would have made him row a bl**ding boat to Jordan, I'm sure that most UK tax payers would also.

Not me, I'd have thrown him out if the aircraft at the edge of UK air space sans parachute..

What, and have him miss all that special hospitality waiting for him in Jordon. I bet he has already received a reception to make him wish he had never been born.

He must have felt exclusive, being flown out on his private chartered jet. All at the tax payers expense. I would have made him row a bl**ding boat to Jordan, I'm sure that most UK tax payers would also.

Not me, I'd have thrown him out if the aircraft at the edge of UK air space sans parachute..

So you'd sanction murder; do it yourself would you, or cowardly ask a member of the armed forces to do it for you, sorry I mean 'us' of course! And then deny it afterwards. Why do you have a problem with a legal process, that's what we all live by? The alternative is to live by your flights of fancy, and what's that? Gas ovens for those who don't qualify or are not worthy of the judicial process in your eyes, or maybe even those who 'sponge' off the state, the aged, the infirm, the malformed? Why stop there, let's go the whole hog, let's throw a few homos, gypsies and Jews in there too!

No just people who hate the culture that gives them sanctuary.

Hopefully he was served a bacon sandwich and a beer on his flight back to Jordan courtesy of the British government.

Hopefully he was served a bacon sandwich and a beer on his flight back to Jordan courtesy of the British government.

In case you don't know: Not everyone eats pork and drinks alcohol.

wish you a blessed Ramadan.

Hopefully he was served a bacon sandwich and a beer on his flight back to Jordan courtesy of the British government.

In case you don't know: Not everyone eats pork and drinks alcohol.

wish you a blessed Ramadan.

Ramadan Shamada- who cares. Lighten up and have a beer and bacon sandwich for lunch

He must have felt exclusive, being flown out on his private chartered jet. All at the tax payers expense. I would have made him row a bl**ding boat to Jordan, I'm sure that most UK tax payers would also.

I couldn't care less if he flew out in a plane made of gold. That applies to all the other Islamic hate mongers AND their families, get them all out and let them go in style, as it's the last bit of style they will ever see.

He must have felt exclusive, being flown out on his private chartered jet. All at the tax payers expense. I would have made him row a bl**ding boat to Jordan, I'm sure that most UK tax payers would also.

Not me, I'd have thrown him out if the aircraft at the edge of UK air space sans parachute..

So you'd sanction murder; do it yourself would you, or cowardly ask a member of the armed forces to do it for you, sorry I mean 'us' of course! And then deny it afterwards. Why do you have a problem with a legal process, that's what we all live by? The alternative is to live by your flights of fancy, and what's that? Gas ovens for those who don't qualify or are not worthy of the judicial process in your eyes, or maybe even those who 'sponge' off the state, the aged, the infirm, the malformed? Why stop there, let's go the whole hog, let's throw a few homos, gypsies and Jews in there too!

No just people who hate the culture that gives them sanctuary.

Whatever crimes he may have committed in Jordan, and that is a matter for the Jordanian courts to decide, he has never been prosecuted for any crime in the UK.

If we start using the same methods as terrorists and murderers, we become terrorists and murderers ourselves.

And if we start protecting terrorists and murderers we become fools.

And if we start protecting terrorists and murderers we become fools.

And by financing and arming them to suit our geopolitical interests we become bigger fools. And hypocrites.

Systemic problem here. It should be far easier for the UK to make foreigners persona non grata.

I highly doubt Abu Qatada is going to fall into that category.

Please stick to the topic.

It's the first duty of any government to protect it's citizens, not the second duty, the third duty, whatever.

The Human Rights Act is an abomination, that clown Tony Blair usurped one thousand years of British struggle through an ignorant and scandalous dogma. he and too many guys like him detest Britain, and what Britain stands for. However in their hatred they don't understand the full context of history, and how it was the common man that brought about the rule of law as we knew it before 1997.

They think it was the elite that created the laws, I bet some of you guys think that too. You have never been so wrong in your lives. Now the common man is looking on and seeing this abomination at work, and just like in the past, it will be he ( and she ) that will force an end to it.

Yesterday it was decided that it was against prisoners Human Rights to be told that they will spend the rest of their lives in prison. Serial murderers, child rapists, rejoice!! In the UK it's a very rare sentence held against those who have committed the most despicable acts. The last time I looked there were only 50 people in the UK on whole life tariff's. Out of a prison population of 80 odd thousand. It takes a uniquely dangerous criminal to have this sentence imposed on him as our justice system is based upon rehabilitation, as it should be.

Never underestimate the capacity of the British common man to understand what is fair and unfair, this has been the backbone of the evolution of law in our country.

As for Qatada, he's done us a favour, and Jordan too. We have shown that in the end we have the tenacity to eject vicious thugs and terror mongers like him, but we did it through the law. The Jordanians may well now have learned a lesson too about the value of information obtained by torture, and hopefully they will up their standards. To show that the rule of law applies is the best example we can give.

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman!

Low as my opinion is of Blair, I fail to see how he can be blamed for something which happened in 1953; the year he was born!

That is the UK being one of the original signatories to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The UK's Human Rights Act, 1998; to which I presume the blether refers:-

The Act makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of any other primary legislation provides no other choice. It also requires the judiciary (including tribunals) to take account of any decisions, judgement or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, known as the Strasbourg court, and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with Convention rights. However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with the Convention, the judges are not allowed to override it. All they can do is issue a declaration of incompatibility. This declaration does not affect the validity of the Act of Parliament: in that way, the Human Rights Act seeks to maintain the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (see: Constitution of the United Kingdom). However, judges may strike down secondary legislation, so long as the legislation does not derive its power from primary legislation.

Under the Act, individuals retain the right to sue in the Strasbourg court.

The problem, of course, with giving rights to people is that people we don't like have those rights as well!

Numerous lessons from history tell us what happens when a government starts to apply those rights selectively.

Yesterday's ruling does not mean that the prisons are suddenly going to be emptied of murderers and rapists etc.!

It also does not mean that serious criminals, such as those serving a while life tariff, will ever be released. merely that they will at some stage be able to apply for parole; doesn't mean they'll get it!

Point of order is denied, we managed to muddle along just fine between 1953 and 1997 till that idiot overwrote 1000 years of British Law.

Now every single law in the country is tested against an act that we did not write, had no hand in, and did not approve as an electorate. If your going to over-ride our ancestors struggles, at least have the courtesy and dignity to ask us to approve, and not force it on us.

Now we will find ourselves in the accursed state that our American cousins find themselves in, the Constitution was supposed to ensure rights, now it's a straight jacket for modern day America. We've now put on the same straight jacket. At least the US self inflicted the wound, Tony Blair shot the British electorate between the eyes.

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman!

Low as my opinion is of Blair, I fail to see how he can be blamed for something which happened in 1953; the year he was born!

That is the UK being one of the original signatories to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The UK's Human Rights Act, 1998; to which I presume the blether refers:-

The Act makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of any other primary legislation provides no other choice. It also requires the judiciary (including tribunals) to take account of any decisions, judgement or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, known as the Strasbourg court, and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with Convention rights. However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with the Convention, the judges are not allowed to override it. All they can do is issue a declaration of incompatibility. This declaration does not affect the validity of the Act of Parliament: in that way, the Human Rights Act seeks to maintain the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (see: Constitution of the United Kingdom). However, judges may strike down secondary legislation, so long as the legislation does not derive its power from primary legislation.

Under the Act, individuals retain the right to sue in the Strasbourg court.

The problem, of course, with giving rights to people is that people we don't like have those rights as well!

Numerous lessons from history tell us what happens when a government starts to apply those rights selectively.

Yesterday's ruling does not mean that the prisons are suddenly going to be emptied of murderers and rapists etc.!

It also does not mean that serious criminals, such as those serving a while life tariff, will ever be released. merely that they will at some stage be able to apply for parole; doesn't mean they'll get it!

I can just see the lawyers rubbing their hands in anticipation of yet more money to be sucked from the system

Point of order is denied, we managed to muddle along just fine between 1953 and 1997 till that idiot overwrote 1000 years of British Law.

Laws which used to mean that a starving man could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.

Laws which used to mean only rich landowners could vote

Laws which used to mean no work, no food and the workhouse.

Laws which used to sanction slavery.

Etc., etc.

Those the laws you mean?

Now every single law in the country is tested against an act that we did not write, had no hand in, and did not approve as an electorate.

The elected government enacted the Act, which tidied up the provisions of the ECHR into UK law. Something which Labour clearly stated in it's manifesto it was going to do.

Labour also passed an act setting up the Scottish Parliament. I don't remember being asked if I wanted that, either. But it was in it's manifesto.

That is the way Parliamentary democracy works. The people elect a government, the government governs. How could the country function if every act had to be put to a referendum?

The UK was one of the original signatories of the ECHR and as such played a major part in it's drafting.

From Wikipedia

The Convention was drafted by the Council of Europe after Second World War in response to a call issued by Europeans from all walks of life who had gathered at the Hague Congress. Over 100 parliamentarians from the twelve member states of the Council of Europe gathered in Strasbourg in the summer of 1949 for the first ever meeting of the Council's Consultative Assembly to draft a "charter of human rights" and to establish a court to enforce it. British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions, was one of its leading members and guided the drafting of the Convention.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion; but please try and get your facts right.