-
Posts
-
@mrs_teapot wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
Human Rights in one form of another pre-dates the last Labour govt by hundreds of years..
Qatada owes his liberty to the laws introduced by Labour. It’s going to cost the taxpayer £5 million to monitor him. What a waste of money.
I’m not condoning him but:
“On the question of why the Palestinian-born Jordanian had never been prosecuted in the UK, Lib Dem peer Lord Macdonald – director of public prosecutions from 2003 to 2008 – told BBC News he had never been shown any evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
The guy has been in prison since 2002 so no evidence in 5 years?
From BBC Website
I agree with you on that Panda, I know the guy has preached religious justification for violence especially against Christians but does that justify his 5 years in prison?
I think keeping him incarcerated makes him a martyr….and gives his teachings more credence… I’m not sure what the solution is with this guy…. it would be lovely to ship him off to Jordan but I think torture would be used….. but should we be bothered if it is?
I agree with your points about martyr etc.
Why can’t he be tried in this country? If the Jordanians have evidence against him why don’t they produce it?
Surely that would resolve the matter?
If she has lost relatives in 9/11 or 7/11 then she might be interested in spending the odd million catching the people who were actually behind making it happen and making sure any convictions stick when they come to court.
Pursuing a prosecution based on insufficient evidence or evidence gained by applying the same values as terrorists is insulting to their victims and makes condemnation of terrorism hypocritical.
The right to fair trial, if recognised during the investigative process, actually makes it more likely that the guilty are punished and not sent away laughing while the innocent are punished.
While I find Qatada’s view abhorrent and a test to my belief in free speech, I would really like to know that the idea that he was Bin Laden’s Man in Europe is more than just rhetoric on either side.
I’m not sure why someone who openly supports human rights shouldn’t be on Question Time, at least it gives her opponents a chance to demonstrate that their views bear examination.
@wordsworth60 wrote:
If she has lost relatives in 9/11 or 7/11 then she might be interested in spending the odd million catching the people who were actually behind making it happen and making sure any convictions stick when they come to court.
Pursuing a prosecution based on insufficient evidence or evidence gained by applying the same values as terrorists is insulting to their victims and makes condemnation of terrorism hypocritical.
The right to fair trial, if recognised during the investigative process, actually makes it more likely that the guilty are punished and not sent away laughing while the innocent are punished.
While I find Qatada’s view abhorrent and a test to my belief in free speech, I would really like to know that the idea that he was Bin Laden’s Man in Europe is more than just rhetoric on either side.
I’m not sure why someone who openly supports human rights shouldn’t be on Question Time, at least it gives her opponents a chance to demonstrate that their views bear examination.
It’s actually been mentioned by other people in the media that she appears an awful lot on Question Time so much so somewhat of an industry joke.
@panda12 wrote:
. . . . . . It’s actually been mentioned by other people in the media that she appears an awful lot on Question Time so much so somewhat of an industry joke.
Not being in the industry I’m not sure what the joke is, as there are others who appear on the programme a lot.
But then again maybe what’s ‘funny’ is this: Question time set out some years ago to find more qualified women panellists. When it came to industry, media and Parliament, they were limited by the fact that all 3 areas have low proportions of women in senior positions. After all these years it’s still so difficult for them to find female panellists on a par with the better male panellists that they keep coming back to the same one(s).
The fact she looks unlined and symmetrical probably makes it easier too.
Still, she’s got an opinion and is articulate, maybe the fact that her imminent presence on Question Time is being discussed shows that we all realise that Qatada’s situation isn’t straightforward: that human rights need to be discussed by people who believe we should have inviolable rights as much as by those who are prepared to sacrifice them on certain issues.
As I’ve said before, comments on here are all very well, but the acid test of our attitude to human rights is whether we’re prepared to sign a document indemnifying the government on behalf of ourselves or our loved ones.
“I ________ promise that I will not defend myself or anyone I really care about against any evidence presented by the government against me that has been gained by torture
Signed ___________”
Because believe me, they wouldn’t have to touch me with that red hot poker before I dobbed in the lot of yer . . . . . . .
@terry wrote:
It’s Shami Chalkribati. And the human rights fiasco is something the wonderful Labour Party introduced.
The Labour Party are responsible for Human Rights? Wow!
Or do you mean that the Labour Party incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, to which this country is a signatory, into British law to prevent cases going to the European Court the whole time. This reduces interference is our affairs by other countries.
You do know, of course, that the Convention and the Council of Europe have nothing to do with the EU, and that Britain was a founding member of the Council in May 1949. The members of the Council and their date of joining are listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe.
You are not of course advocating a withdrawal from one of the civilising forces in recent world history which binds the whole of Europe including Russia and Serbia together in common standards of human decency.
I do not agree with Qatada’s release and feel that we could all have been prevented huge expense by trying him here. Ministers, in this government and the last, seem to have been hell bent on deportation cos it looks better. We are also unwilling to offend Jordan, who are our friends but hardly have the human rights record of a European state such as us.
We could have resolved this issue many times over but instead, as a result of misjudgements and incompetence, we are left with this mess.
Oooooo, those damned human rights again!
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
. . . . . . It’s actually been mentioned by other people in the media that she appears an awful lot on Question Time so much so somewhat of an industry joke.
Not being in the industry I’m not sure what the joke is, as there are others who appear on the programme a lot.
But then again maybe what’s ‘funny’ is this: Question time set out some years ago to find more qualified women panellists. When it came to industry, media and Parliament, they were limited by the fact that all 3 areas have low proportions of women in senior positions. After all these years it’s still so difficult for them to find female panellists on a par with the better male panellists that they keep coming back to the same one(s).
The fact she looks unlined and symmetrical probably makes it easier too.
From Wiki:
“Chakrabarti is a frequently invited contributor to BBC Radio 4 and various newspapers on the topic of human rights and civil liberties. The Observer wrote that she puts in “seemingly endless appearances on Question Time and the rolling news bulletins”. She was also described in The Times newspaper as “the most effective public affairs lobbyist of the past 20 years”
I have nothing against her personally.
@panda12 wrote:
I have nothing against her personally.
Neither do I, but she makes far too many appearances on the programme than is warranted. There are other people who could make more interesting and varied observations. I blame the BBC for its dependancy on the same panellists week in, week out.
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
I have nothing against her personally.
Neither do I, but she makes far too many appearances on the programme than is warranted. There are other people who could make more interesting and varied observations. I blame the BBC for its dependancy on the same panellists week in, week out.
At least she’s invited, if ‘blame’ were to attached for every frequent contributor to a forum, what would happen to these boards? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@terry wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
I have nothing against her personally.
Neither do I, but she makes far too many appearances on the programme than is warranted. There are other people who could make more interesting and varied observations. I blame the BBC for its dependancy on the same panellists week in, week out.
At least she’s invited, if ‘blame’ were to attached for every frequent contributor to a forum, what would happen to these boards? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Actually I like her and I can understand her regular appearances… I always watch QT .. that and Dallas :D
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!