22 Aug 10
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7958202/Surge-in-Britons-exported-for-trial.html
The UK judges responsible for determining whether or not to sanction the export of those wanted to stand trial elsewhere have been applying the law subsribed to by the former Labour government, as have those who have blocked the export of those, including the repatriation of aliens resident in the UK, wanted to stand trial on terrorist charges elswhere, even when there is strong prima facie evidence of guilt.
Shows what happens when a bunch of incompetents are elected to form a government. But the judges get the blame for the resultant crazy results of strictly applying the 'law as it stands'.
22 Aug 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusJudges enforcing laws "as they stand" is a good thing.
The UK judges responsible for determining whether or not to sanction the export of those wanted to stand trial elsewhere have been applying the law subsribed to by the former Labour government, as have those who have blocked the export of those, including the repatriation of aliens resident in the UK, wanted to stand trial on terrorist charges elswhe ...[text shortened]... ges get the blame for the resultant crazy results of strictly applying the 'law as it stands'.
Your post has vaporous assertions like "even when there is strong prima facie evidence of guilt" which means nothing coming from you, as I am sure you will appreciate.
I think, as far as supporters of the so called War On Terrorism are concerned, the U.K. has been seen as a staunch ally and most reproach from daft-right has been fairly incoherent on account of the contorted partisanship necessary to somehow have it both ways.
22 Aug 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHad you taken the trouble to read the article instead of shooting you mouth off
How is the text of your OP related to the article? The article claims the number of people exported for trial has risen sharply.
before doing so, you would have seen that it lists details of cases where Britons have been held for many months awaiting export or trial on relatively trivial charges. Some are alleged to have been beaten and held in deplorable conditions in 2nd rate EU countries like Greece.
My point was to contrast the treatment of these with that of known terrorists in the UK similarly wanted to stand trial elsewhere.
22 Aug 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusHave another go, Sartor. You just seem intent on making some sort of outraged and jingoistic point and yet this one and only point is totally unclear. Take a second run at it.
Had you taken the trouble to read the article instead of shooting you mouth off
before doing so, you would have seen that it lists details of cases where Britons have been held for many months awaiting export or trial on relatively trivial charges. Some are alleged to have been beaten and held in deplorable conditions in 2nd rate EU countries like ...[text shortened]... ment of these with that of known terrorists in the UK similarly wanted to stand trial elsewhere.
22 Aug 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusI'm sure I've seen you in the past say in posts, that you never bothered reading links this, links that, 'say what you have to say in here', etc etc.
Had you taken the trouble to read the article instead of shooting you mouth off
before doing so, you would have seen that it lists details of cases where Britons have been held for many months awaiting export or trial on relatively trivial charges. Some are alleged to have been beaten and held in deplorable conditions in 2nd rate EU countries like ...[text shortened]... ment of these with that of known terrorists in the UK similarly wanted to stand trial elsewhere.
Don't like it do ya! 😵
Where does it say in the Newspaper article about allegations of beatings and deplorable conditions? 😕
22 Aug 10
Originally posted by FMFIt is perfectly clear if you read the article and contrast the treatment of the cases cited with that of some individuals connected with known terrorist organisations similarly wanted to stand trial abroad.
Have another go, Sartor. You just seem intent on making some sort of outraged and jingoistic point and yet this one and only point is totally unclear. Take a second run at it.
But we know you are but a pompous ass with a thick head.
22 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusSo different countries have different standards? Well done, Sartor. Bravo. The U.K. is "better" than Greece when it comes to standards, according to you, is it? Tremendous stuff, Sartor. Bravo, once again.
It is perfectly clear if you read the article and contrast the treatment of the cases cited with that of some individuals connected with known terrorist organisations similarly wanted to stand trial abroad.
22 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou fool, it is not about the laws of different countries, but the anomalous treatment in the UK of individuals wanted to stand trial abroad.
So different countries have different standards? Well done, Sartor. Bravo. The U.K. is "better" than Greece when it comes to standards, according to you, is it? Tremendous stuff, Sartor. Bravo, once again.
For good measure read these links and contrast with the UK failure to extradite known terrorists wanted to stand trial on terrorist charges abroad.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6736122.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7958208/Arrested-and-held-in-Britain-on-demand-of-EU-prosecutors.html
22 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusBy "anomalous" do you mean illegal? If not, you scarcely have a point to make, your sincerity and outrage notwithstanding.
You fool, it is not about the laws of different countries, but the anomalous treatment in the UK of individuals wanted to stand trial abroad.
22 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFHad I intended to assert that either or both procedures were illegal I waould have said so. The term 'anomalous' does not mean 'illegal', but incongruous, or inconsistent.
By "anomalous" do you mean illegal? If not, you scarcely have a point to make, your sincerity and outrage notwithstanding.
Your ignorance is evidently even greater than I had thought and is inconsistent with your implied claim to know it all, "having travelled the world, man".