Home› Archived Forums› Politics

Abu Qatada not guilty

Lady DynorodLady Dynorod Posts: 1,462
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in Politics #1
Ten years in detention in the UK without trial...now found not guilty - even in Jordan!

Precedent now set. The UK can jail people without trial, without sufficient evidence to bring any case, despite all the powers of the state trying to find evidence to do so.
«134

Comments

  • swingalegswingaleg Posts: 103,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #2
    blimey.........after all that palaver

    who's have thought it ?

    :o
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #3
    Lady Dynorod wrote: »
    Ten years in detention in the UK without trial...now found not guilty - even in Jordan!

    Precedent now set. The UK can jail people without trial, without sufficient evidence to bring any case, despite all the powers of the state trying to find evidence to do so.

    Precedent set is that no one can ever demand to be an asylum seeker based on the threat of torture in Jordan and no chance of a fair trial. Good news.

    And he can never come back here. More good news.
  • RaferRafer Posts: 14,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    As I've been saying all along. If there was evidence of his alleged crimes and as dangerous as successive home secretaries claimed why wasn't he tried in this country?
    I wouldn't be too surprised if the right result was reached with regard to the situation in Jordan and the influence of isis/is/isil/whatever were calling them these days.
  • Jenny_SawyerJenny_Sawyer Posts: 12,858
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #5
    Annsyre wrote: »
    Precedent set is that no one can ever demand to be an asylum seeker based on the threat of torture in Jordan and no chance of a fair trial. Good news.

    And he can never come back here. More good news.

    I hope you're right.
  • RecordPlayerRecordPlayer Posts: 22,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    Rafer wrote: »
    As I've been saying all along. If there was evidence of his alleged crimes and as dangerous as successive home secretaries claimed why wasn't he tried in this country?
    I wouldn't be too surprised if the right result was reached with regard to the situation in Jordan and the influence of isis/is/isil/whatever were calling them these days.

    He's against IS.. ( heard it on the radio)

    He condemns the beheadings of journalists, saying they're messengers of truth.
  • RaferRafer Posts: 14,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #7
    RecordPlayer wrote: »
    He's against IS.. ( heard it on the radio)

    He condemns the beheadings of journalists, saying they're messengers of truth.

    I'd have never have thought that. Good on him.
  • ElectraElectra Posts: 55,660
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    Annsyre wrote: »
    Precedent set is that no one can ever demand to be an asylum seeker based on the threat of torture in Jordan and no chance of a fair trial. Good news.

    And he can never come back here. More good news.

    Seems like a win-win situation allround, doesn't it? :)
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,803
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    I always thought it ludicrous the way the government and media had made him into a bogeyman figure, had there been a shred of truth to it he would have been tried here instead of making his deportation some sort of ridiculous virility test for successive Home Secretaries.
  • AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    #10
    dodrade wrote: »
    I always thought it ludicrous the way the government and media had made him into a bogeyman figure, had there been a shred of truth to it he would have been tried here instead of making his deportation some sort of ridiculous virility test for successive Home Secretaries.

    Even Blunkett praised May this morning. She did a good job imo.
    Far better to have him out of the country permanently than languishing in a jail at our expense, or worse roaming our streets and living on our money.
  • blueisthecolourblueisthecolour Posts: 20,125
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #11
    I thought the tabloid press had declared him guilty years ago?

    "Courts", "legal process", "judges" - it's just more 'uman rites nonsense to let people who are clearly terrorists (just look at him) go free . . . . .
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #12
    blueisthecolour wrote: »
    "Courts", "legal process", "judges" - it's just more 'uman rites nonsense to let people who are clearly terrorists (just look at him) go free . . . . .
    :o
    ooookay ....
    'walking in a loud shirt in a built up area ...'
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y
    or see around 2m18s
  • Clarisse76Clarisse76 Posts: 5,566
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #13
    blueisthecolour wrote: »
    I thought the tabloid press had declared him guilty years ago?

    "Courts", "legal process", "judges" - it's just more 'uman rites nonsense to let people who are clearly terrorists (just look at him) go free . . . . .
    Oh. I didn't realise it was that simple. Maybe they should stop messing around and use that method all the time to identify terrorists.

    What's that, Skippy? They already did? On the London Undergound? Jean Charles who..?
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    Rafer wrote: »
    As I've been saying all along. If there was evidence of his alleged crimes and as dangerous as successive home secretaries claimed why wasn't he tried in this country?
    .

    Because if you commit crimes in a foreign country, expect to be tried in a foreign country. Why should the UK bear the expense?
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    Lady Dynorod wrote: »
    Ten years in detention in the UK without trial...now found not guilty - even in Jordan!

    He detained himself! He could have left Britain at any time he wished to go back to Jordan to clear himself of the charges he was facing. His entire defense - that he could not get a fair trial in Jordan - was obviously based on a lie. We now know that Jordan does indeed conduct fair trials, which means that there is now no reason why anyone now living in Europe and facing charges in Jordan should be immediately extradited there.
  • RaferRafer Posts: 14,231
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #16
    grassmarket wrote: »
    Because if you commit crimes in a foreign country, expect to be tried in a foreign country. Why should the UK bear the expense?

    I understand that. What I don't understand is: If he was everything he was portrayed to be, he must have broken some law in the UK possibly relating to inciting hatred. Why couldn't he have been charged in the uk for that. The alternative is that he commited no crime while in the UK. If that's the case why was he under a control order?
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    I suppose it's proof how much Jordan has improved in the last 20 years...I mean in 1994 he was granted asylum here because the UK authorities were prepared to believe he had been tortured and persecuted there.

    And wasn't part of the deal Tessie O'May did with Jordan to get rid of him amount to them not using evidence against him that may or may not have been extracted by torture?
  • JerrybobJerrybob Posts: 1,685
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    Now he's a free man his wife and numerous kids who reside in our country in a nice big house courtesy of the taxpayer along with numerous benefits can now go and join him wherever he decides to live. (presumably Jordan). And good riddance.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,997
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    Perhaps the ECtHR may reflect on their ruling about deportees MAY not get 'fair trials' in Jordan and other countries.
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #20
    Rafer wrote: »
    . If that's the case why was he under a control order?

    Because he was accused of committing serious offences abroad.
  • solenoidsolenoid Posts: 15,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #21
    He was made a bogeyman figure because the UK procrastinated, for years, over whether or not to send him back to Jordan thanks to "human rights" considerations.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #22
    Well if he'd agreed to go back in the first place, he wouldn't have had to stay locked up here for so long.

    Just because he's been found not guilty doesn't mean he's suddenly someone we'd want here preaching his hatred, so for us, the main thing was getting rid of him.
  • dekafdekaf Posts: 8,398
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #23
    Deep Purple wrote: »
    Well if he'd agreed to go back in the first place, he wouldn't have had to stay locked up here for so long.

    Just because he's been found not guilty doesn't mean he's suddenly someone we'd want here preaching his hatred, so for us, the main thing was getting rid of him.

    Indeed. I hope his wife and family join him soon. I don't think the apple has fallen far from the tree with regards his sons.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,003
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #24
    Strikes me that either;
    a. he should protest that he didn't have a fair trial as that wasn't possible in Jordan; and appeal against the acquittal;
    or
    b. we should ask him for a refund of the cost of his stay here on the basis that he defrauded the Government by making false representation in claiming Jordan would not give him a fair trial.
    :p
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    Annsyre wrote: »
    Precedent set is that no one can ever demand to be an asylum seeker based on the threat of torture in Jordan and no chance of a fair trial. Good news.
    The precedent was set by our court once they sent him back.
    And he can never come back here. More good news.

    Why can't he come back?
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #26
    grassmarket wrote: »
    He detained himself! He could have left Britain at any time he wished to go back to Jordan to clear himself of the charges he was facing. His entire defense - that he could not get a fair trial in Jordan - was obviously based on a lie. We now know that Jordan does indeed conduct fair trials, which means that there is now no reason why anyone now living in Europe and facing charges in Jordan should be immediately extradited there.

    You've not followed this very well. It was only after the UK had managed to get changes in the Jordan legal system that he could get a fair trial.

    The fact that he'd already been tried and found guilty previously rather tends to suggest he was right.
Sign In or Register to comment.