• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Qatada Wins Appeal Against Deportation

Now while I was joking around (sorry I forgot, its called trolling when done online apparently *yawn*) and it clearly isnt a good decision for us, it probably is the right decision by law. While its easy for everyone to sit here and say they'd deport him, to be the judge actually making the decision to send someone to be tortured is probably a very difficult position to be in (both morally and professionally).
 
Roy1983 said:
People like him deserve to be tortured.
Click to expand...

Yeah. We can say that as you know however much you say it your opinion is irrelevant and he wont get tortured because of your words, but a judge cant go around making statements like that. And Britain really would have gone down hill if that was the mentality of our cleverest people.

Im sure the judge wanted rid of him as much as the next person, but he couldnt do it.
 
I agree. Although Britain has gone downhill if we can't deport this illegal immigrant costing the countries hard working taxpayers thousands.
 
This just leads to still more festering resentment of immigration and 'asylum' rules.

We have the ingredients for a civil war here.
 
LutonSpurs said:
They can deport him on those grounds but we wont deport anyone to a place where we believe they might be tortured. That is his get out clause. Obviously the other option is to charge him with whatever crime he has committed and sentence him to prison but there isn't really a case against him apparently. Bizarre situation.

Also SIAC is not a European court, the judge is a UK judge and sits in the immigration court here in London.
Click to expand...

As I understand the case (only what's been on radio 4), it's been accepted he won't be tortured, but not that evidence used against him isn't a result of torture.

In which case, surely there's grounds for an immigration deportation rather than a criminal one? Or is there some kind of 'statute of limitations' on immigration?
 
scaramanga said:
As I understand the case (only what's been on radio 4), it's been accepted he won't be tortured, but not that evidence used against him isn't a result of torture.

In which case, surely there's grounds for an immigration deportation rather than a criminal one? Or is there some kind of 'statute of limitations' on immigration?
Click to expand...

I think you may well be right on the torture issue, Jordan have promised to not torture but apparently the evidence they have against him may have been obtained by torture and thus making the court case unfair according to our law. Hence why the judge in SIAC decided to stop the deportation. Not that I agree with the ruling.
 
LutonSpurs said:
I think you may well be right on the torture issue, Jordan have promised to not torture but apparently the evidence they have against him may have been obtained by torture and thus making the court case unfair according to our law. Hence why the judge in SIAC decided to stop the deportation. Not that I agree with the ruling.
Click to expand...

If that is the reason, doesn't it make any court case unfair? unless they have a time machine... if questioned now he will surely deny it all and go back on the original testimony.

Can't they deport him based on having entered the country illegally in the first place?
 
Its a vicious circle, Cant deport him for the criminal charges as torture may have been used to secure evidence and/or testimony which would secure a conviction, so no deportation. So, we are going to deport him on the ground of illegal immigration, again we cant deport him as we know he will be arrested for the crimes he is wanted for and torture may have been used to secure evidence and/or testomony which would secure a conviction. We cant arrest him here and hold him due to lack of physical evidence. I say we do what the Italians did with two suspected terrorists who were wanted in another country, ignore the human rights court findings, deport him anyway and get fined by the European Legislator 12,000 Euro!
 
P.D. said:
WHat would happen if we just went against the court and deported him anyway?
Click to expand...

Any country that defies their own courts is treading a dangerous path.

But didn't I read something about us creating new drones. They surely need to be tested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back