If anyone's interested in the latter point, please consider signing this petition: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628
Some of the less publicised changes the government makes (regardless blue or red) are quite frankly astonishing.
Although hey, am sure those forwarding the bill get nice backhanders from g4s and the like
As you are so moved to sign a petition, perhaps you could explain the intricacies of this change to Legal Aid, as there is no information within the petition to explain any of it. No need to hijack the thread, you could start a new one, I'd be very interested.
Apple Lossless - ATV3 - AVI ADM 40 also ATV3 into AVI ADM 9T [my wife's system]
and Grado SR80i
After squandering millions of taxpayers money, umpteen unsuccessful attempts at extraditing Abu Qatada to Jordan not to mention a taxpayers trip to said country she has, in my opinion, completely failed the people of Great Britain. More concerned with her personal face saving battle against the courts Theresa May should loose her job with immediate effect. - Worse, she has now set a dangerous presedence for any further, similar cases, making it vastly more difficult to extradite and giving subjects almost unlimited legal support to fight any decisions. - The French just put them on a plane, instead prefering to solve any european or otherwise court issues afterwards ... if at all. A much better solution surely.
I don't care how much it costs to go through the process,we have to do everything to get rid of these hatred fueled fools.
PanasonicTX-P46GT30B..Yamaha RX-A1010...Music Fidelity M3i...OPPO105EU...KEFR100/R200C/3001SE/HTB2SE...SkyHD2TB...QED Copper Speaker Cable /HDMI/Analogue...PS3...IPAD2
I agree, but speeding-up the process would appear to require a change in the law, and the Home Secretary must have known this before wasting countless money on trying, presumably just for publicity like BenLaw said. I'm not particularly bothered how he's treated in Jordan after he's been thrown out of here. For all I care they can hang him upside down by his ankles, set fire to his petrol-soaked pubes and then force-feed him his own barbequed nads, but I fully agree we can't pick and choose which laws to follow depending on whether or not we like a person or their views.
Main system: Mac Mini 2011 > HRT II+ DAC • Cyrus 2 & PSX • Cyrus tuner • MS 10i speakers [on loan]
Also cluttering-up the place: Thorens TD160 (no cart) • Marantz CD 63 mkII KI & PM66 KI • Technics SL-P777 • Nakamichi DR-1
This has nothing to do with publicity,the courts agree that he is a very dangerous individual...the only issue is Jordan,who today have signed a new ''we promise not to hurt him treaty''
I would be ashamed if the gov didn't pursue every av to get rid of him,although i can't see us pulling out of the european human rights club(we wrote it!)
My advice to M's May...incidents and accidents happen all the time at Bellmarsh... >)
Discussion of a high profile and generally reviled figure such as Qatada lends right wing (separatist) commentary weight -- "It's madness that we can't deport a man that means us harm. Our hands are tied by overpaid bureaucrats." Debates about EU membership are thus focused on isolated and extreme cases when policy seems to let us down. As a humanist, I don't believe anybody should be handed over to torturers, however heinous their crimes or objectionable their views.
In my view, the European Convention on Human Rights is one of the most important documents ever created and we sever ties with it at our peril. (Before you ask, I've read it.) The Convention stands as a barrier to the erosion of our civil rights; and sections of the British political elite would dearly love to remove this obstacle with more Draconian ends in mind.
Hardware: Panasonic TX-P50VT65B (calibrated); Cambridge Audio Azur 651BD; Yamaha RX-A810; Teac PD-H600; PS3; B&W 601 & 600LCR (series 3); Q Acoustics QAV (rear)
Furniture and Accessories: BLOK Classix 3000 Oak AV Cabinet; Atacama Nexus 6 (atabite metal filled); 3D3 A1112
Generally I hold the same beliefs, but in the case of someone whose own radical views would happily see me dead, I find I am able to suspend my concern over their future welfare. Although my belief is irrelevant in this case.
In the case of someone whose own radical views would happily see me dead, I find I am able to suspend my concern over their future welfare.
Which is a personal view that is fortunately protected by law.
I'm less worried for Qatada and more concerned with any precedent set by overlooking key Convention clauses. (Though as I say, I don't support torture under any circumstances, not least because it's a far from reliable means of obtaining information.)
What we give away is profoundly difficult to get back.
These human rights political correctness quotes are all very admirable, nice and lovely ...
... If you or one of your relatives are on the receiving end of an act of one of these fanatics, I would bet you a pint, that is if you're still in the mood/capable of having a drink afterwards, you'd most probably feel slightly different about the issue.
As for me, rightly or wrongly, I dont need that to happen first to realize that this particular situation is beyond a farce.
On a plane and out but each to their own.
Pretty ... and pretty proud of it
At no point did I express sympathy for Qatada, or state affinity with his views and objectives, or suggest his human rights should be privileged over others'. To be clear, as a liberal atheist, I have no common ground with a man that preaches murder through perverted religious teaching.
I was arguing for preservation of the European Convention on Human Rights. More specifically, I was observing that we contravene the Convention's tenets at our peril. This has nothing to do with "political correctness."
It's worth remembering that the ECHR was drafted in the aftermath of World War II, as a response to fascism, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and to prevent state exploitation of workers under emerging Communist regimes. (We can argue about the Convention's efficacy on that last point.) Many liberties you take for granted are in place (and remain so) because of this document. If we become increasingly selective about the Convention's application, we set dangerous precedents that facilitate future encroachments on all of our civil rights. Consequently, I would view ignorance of the Convention in this case a threat to all our civil liberties. This observation is not the same as stating support for Qatada.
While Qatada's continued presence in the UK is frustrating and (perhaps) concerning, I find preservation of his human rights the lesser of two evils. The current situation is far from ideal, but the alternative is worse.
That was not directed strictly at you Strapped.
I was generalising ... as one does.
Anyway, I've expressed my opinion and can't really add anymore to it.
bbc can describe it much better than I can :) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21991945
the basic upshot of which is that there will be a lot of people now uneligible for legal aid, which in turn basically has a knock on effect that big businesses etc will be able to get away with a lot more as people will not be able to afford proper legal council. I personally know a few people who have used legal aid before, and under the new rules would basically be shafted and would have lost their jobs and houses without any comeback (both won for unfair dissmissal against their employers, bearing in mind they were earning next to nothing anyways) so for them it was the difference beteween being on the streets and not.
So whilst on the surface some of the proposals may seem fair to some extent, it's the whole knock on effect that it may have is more worrying, and again, the big point being that cuts are comnig out of the section of society that need it most, not the the other way round.
So, what are you saying, she SHOULDN'T have tried to extradite him?
Imagine the headlines...
No signature worth mentioning...
Where is Jack Bauer when you need him ?
“Out beyond ideas of wrong and right, there is a field.
I'll meet you there."
Give the guy a job as bird warden.
On St. Kilda, or better still Rockall. Best of all that island in the Hebrides they experimented with dropping biological weapons on during WW2.
Hmmmm, I think you might have chosen the wrong aspect of the legal system, the Tribunal, to highlight for keeping Legal Aid. As I understand the principles and practice of the Tribunal system, it has run on the specific fundamental of not needing a solicitor/barrister. Indeed i have assisted friends and family with tribunals against represented and unrepresented opposition and never found the tribunals to be other than welcoming and helpful.
There are also many clients taken on within the 'No win, no fee' scheme, so the withdrawal of Legal Aid does not leave people without any prospect of legal representation. Well anyone with a case worth pursuing any way.
A case I can give about waste is my own divorce many years ago. I paid my own solicitor and later represented myself and the cost was less than £100. My ex-wife managed to run up a contribution cost to Legal Aid of almost £1000, more than 10 times the amount. Because she was legally aided she went running off to a solicitor about anything and everything and then changed her mind over and over again. A complete waste of money and Court time.
I am sure that there are some genuine concerns about changes to Legal Aid. But I rather suspect that the main impetus for any resistance to change is from the legal profession worrying about their income stream for exotic cars, houses and holidays.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing