Abu Qatada cannot be deported.

[User removed 4]

Out of interest, which of the following do you disagree with from The Human Rights Act?

the right to life THIS WHEN IT THREATENS US
freedom from torture and degrading treatment COULDNT CARE LESS IF IT SAVES INNOCENT LIVES
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty THIS WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IS COMMITTING OR HAS COMMITTED OR IS ADVOCATING CRIMINAL OR TERRORIST ACTS
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life THIS WHEN IT COSTS US MONEY , AS IN THE CASE OF THE BRAZILIAN WHO COULDNT BE DEPORTED DUE TO HIM BEING HIV POSITIVE OR THE IRAQI KURD HIT AND RUN DRIVER
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefsTHIS WHEN THESE BELIEFS ARE VIOPLENT OR OFFENSIVE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC
freedom of expressionTHIS AS IN THE ABOVE ANSWER
freedom of assembly and associationTHIS WHEN ITS BEING USED TO PLAN OR EXECUTE TERRORIST ATTACKS OR EXPRESS VIEWS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO INFLAME THE OPINION OF THE HOST SOCIETY
the right to marry and to start a familyTHIS WHEN IT IS A COST TO US FINANCIALLY
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property THIS WHEN IT IS A COST TO US FINANCIALLY

the right to an education THIS WHEN IT IS A COST TO US FINANCIALLY

the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

See Above.

 

[Bakero]

he right to life THIS WHEN IT THREATENS US
freedom from torture and degrading treatment COULDNT CARE LESS IF IT SAVES INNOCENT LIVES
freedom from slavery and forced labour
the right to liberty THIS WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IS COMMITTING OR HAS COMMITTED OR IS ADVOCATING CRIMINAL OR TERRORIST ACTS
the right to a fair trial
the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
the right to respect for private and family life THIS WHEN IT COSTS US MONEY , AS IN THE CASE OF THE BRAZILIAN WHO COULDNT BE DEPORTED DUE TO HIM BEING HIV POSITIVE OR THE IRAQI KURD HIT AND RUN DRIVER
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefsTHIS WHEN THESE BELIEFS ARE VIOPLENT OR OFFENSIVE TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC
freedom of expressionTHIS AS IN THE ABOVE ANSWER
freedom of assembly and associationTHIS WHEN ITS BEING USED TO PLAN OR EXECUTE TERRORIST ATTACKS OR EXPRESS VIEWS DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO INFLAME THE OPINION OF THE HOST SOCIETY
the right to marry and to start a familyTHIS WHEN IT IS A COST TO US FINANCIALLY
the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property THIS WHEN IT IS A COST TO US FINANCIALLY

the right to an education THIS WHEN IT IS A COST TO US FINANCIALLY

the right to participate in free elections
the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

See Above.

Can't be bothered to go through all of this but with regard to the underlined points:

What if the person being tortured is innocent? Can you rely on the testimony of a victim of torture? How long would you last under torture before telling them what they wanted to hear?

A cost to us financially? Are you suggesting that immigrants that the UK needs should have to pay for the education of their children?

 

[User removed 4]

Can't be bothered to go through all of this but with regard to the underlined points:

What if the person being tortured is innocent? Can you rely on the testimony of a victim of torture? How long would you last under torture before telling them what they wanted to hear?

A cost to us financially? Are you suggesting that immigrants that the UK needs should have to pay for the education of their children?

No, I'm suggesting that if this is the basis or reason for someone making use of the Human Rights Act then I object to it.

 

[Bakero]

No, I'm suggesting that if this is the basis or reason for someone making use of the Human Rights Act then I object to it.

Fair enough, that's not the impression I got from your initial post. Especially after the usual ramblings about the Human Rights Act. I can understand objections about it's interpretation in cases such as this but not with the premise of laws safeguarding basic rights.

 

[User removed 4]

Fair enough, that's not the impression I got from your initial post. Especially after the usual ramblings about the Human Rights Act. I can understand objections about it's interpretation in cases such as this but not with the premise of laws safeguarding basic rights.

I'ts the interpretation that I, and I suspect most people have a problem with, it sometimes seems the judiciary in this country are deliberately obtuse.

 

[FREDBINNEY]

What if the person being tortured is innocent? Can you rely on the testimony of a victim of torture? How long would you last under torture before telling them what they wanted to hear?

I think it's a case of needs must.