Iraq damages cases: Supreme Court rules families can sue

[Beef Oven]

And yes, I do think that if he faces trial in Jordan for offences committed in Jordan he should, in principle, be extradited to Jordan; certainly there appears to be no impediment that bothers Abu Qatada himself.

In principle is taken for granted. The point is whether a country claiming to be a mature democracy should extradite anyone anywhere if they will not get a fair trial. For this short-sighted complete idiot of an ignoramus, the answer is emphatically 'no'.

[french frank]

In principle is taken for granted. The point is whether a country claiming to be a mature democracy should extradite anyone anywhere if they will not get a fair trial. For this short-sighted complete idiot of an ignoramus, the answer is emphatically 'no'.

But here we are seeing, are we not, a violation of Beef Oven's notion of democracy, since the UK government:

1. Determined on deporting Abu Qatada, even though he faced a trial in a country which allowed torture to extract evidence

2. Our sovereign parliament was overruled by an interfering 'world' organisation which declared it would contravene an article of the European Convention on Human Rights

3. It was then reported that the UK government was contemplating leaving the ECHR to allow them to go ahead with the deportation anyway. Hurrah! http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/...atada-struggle

4. Agreement was then reached with Jordan which satisfied the ECHR http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/...x?i=001-108629 - Jordan to pass the necessary laws this week and the UK parliament to ratify it.

So it was the democratically elected government which 'disagreed' with your position, and those interfering Europeans who sided with you.

[Beef Oven]

But here we are seeing, are we not, a violation of Beef Oven's notion of democracy, since the UK government:

1. Determined on deporting Abu Qatada, even though he faced a trial in a country which allowed torture to extract evidence

2. Our sovereign parliament was overruled by an interfering 'world' organisation which declared it would contravene an article of the European Convention on Human Rights

3. It was then reported that the UK government was contemplating leaving the ECHR to allow them to go ahead with the deportation anyway. Hurrah! http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2013/...atada-struggle

4. Agreement was then reached with Jordan which satisfied the ECHR http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/...x?i=001-108629 - Jordan to pass the necessary laws this week and the UK parliament to ratify it.

So it was the democratically elected government which 'disagreed' with your position, and those interfering Europeans who sided with you.

Where have I said that I agree with this government on any of this? Is not my position obviously in conflict with the government?

[french frank]

Where have I said that I agree with this government on any of this? Is not my position obviously in conflict with the government?

In Msg #15 you said:

"You want to abandon parliamentary democracy? How short-sighted. You are in favour of a world or European government overseeing our parliament? "

[Beef Oven]

In Msg #15 you said:

"You want to abandon parliamentary democracy? How short-sighted. You are in favour of a world or European government overseeing our parliament? "

Our parliament, not our government.

I am an inveterate supporter of parliamentary democracy. Anti-fascist, anti-socialist, but no fan of this government.

[MrGongGong]

NO! we don't need the ECHR for this is the point, NOT what the UK's record has been.

Our elected representatives in Westminster can make proper provision.

Yeah , right
just like they are doing with Education you mean ?
Thank whoever that we do have the ECHR to temper the actions of the morons who seem to have (un-democratically ) found themselves in charge

[ahinton]

What "our" (whose?) elected representatives in Westminster are doing and what those who elect them might reasonable expect them to do are becoming ever farther apart, not least because, as has been noted elsewhere, the differences in aims and policies of the various electable political parties have become closer together while their trustworthiness has ebbed away. Yes, Britain's own laws ought to suffice to deal with issues such as that under discussion here, but if that is not the case, recourse to ECHR is the only possible option other than simply giving up and giving in. Whilst it's a quite different example, the very fact that there are certain organisations in this country who are granted statutory immunity from liability to damages regardless of the consequences of their actions; as no reasons have, as far as I know, been provided by government as to why this should be, the implication is that government is content to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to this particular shortcoming in the judicial system. If a government can fall short in such an issue, how can it be trusted to address the kind of issue under discussion here? What is surely of abiding importance is not who dispenses the justice but that it is possible to dispense.

[Beef Oven]

Yeah , right
just like they are doing with Education you mean ?
Thank whoever that we do have the ECHR to temper the actions of the morons who seem to have (un-democratically ) found themselves in charge

We must move beyond single issues. Music is important but hardly a show-stopper for national sovereignty.

[Beef Oven]

What "our" (whose?) elected representatives in Westminster are doing and what those who elect them might reasonable expect them to do are becoming ever farther apart, not least because, as has been noted elsewhere, the differences in aims and policies of the various electable political parties have become closer together while their trustworthiness has ebbed away. Yes, Britain's own laws ought to suffice to deal with issues such as that under discussion here, but if that is not the case, recourse to ECHR is the only possible option other than simply giving up and giving in. Whilst it's a quite different example, the very fact that there are certain organisations in this country who are granted statutory immunity from liability to damages regardless of the consequences of their actions; as no reasons have, as far as I know, been provided by government as to why this should be, the implication is that government is content to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to this particular shortcoming in the judicial system. If a government can fall short in such an issue, how can it be trusted to address the kind of issue under discussion here? What is surely of abiding importance is not who dispenses the justice but that it is possible to dispense.

The answer is not to just give up and hand over sovereignty to a World or European authority (never seen Star Trek?). What is important is for authority to be delegated nearer and nearer to actual communities.

And please use 'farther' for physical distance only, and further for metaphorical distance.

[french frank]

And please use 'farther' for physical distance only, and further for metaphorical distance.

Pedantry alert. Disputed comment.

[Beef Oven]

Pedantry alert. Disputed comment.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

[Richard Barrett]

Music is important but hardly a show-stopper for national sovereignty.

I'm not certain what you mean by this, but surely music is enormously more important than this supposed national sovereignty.

[Beef Oven]

I'm not certain what you mean by this, but surely music is enormously more important than this supposed national sovereignty.

National? Who said national? Was it Aunt Sally or the Straw Man?

National sovereignty is not my argument. That is the assumption made by people in here.

[Richard Barrett]

National sovereignty is not my argument. That is the assumption made by people in here.

If "people" are misconstruing your points, perhaps you could make them a little more clearly; I for one couldn't make out what your argument was.

[Beef Oven]

If "people" are misconstruing your points, perhaps you could make them a little more clearly; I for one couldn't make out what your argument was.

Well, the point is that problems can't be solved by the same thinking that caused the problems in the first place. Neither Washington nor Moscow, as we used to say.