Forum Topic

Abu Qatada,,,,...Arrested.

Abu Quatada has been arrested by the Border Agency this morning, in preparation to return him to Jordan in two weeks time.  Deportation at last.

Nicola Howard ● 5265d61 Comments

Let's hope.

Susan Kelly ● 5265d

The date give is the 30th April.I wonder if his family will be going with him?

Nicola Howard ● 5265d

Just found the news item.Radical cleric Abu Qatada has been taken into custody and proceedings to have him deported to Jordan are under way.The Home Office has confirmed it is now preparing to have Qatada sent home to face trial for terrorism offences after years of fighting for his deportation.Qatada, once described by a judge as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, was arrested by officers from the UK Border Agency at his home in London.He has been informed the intention is to deport him to Jordan on or around April 30.A Home Office spokesman said: "UK Border Agency officers have today arrested Abu Qatada and told him that we intend to resume deportation proceedings against him."Sky's deputy political editor Joey Jones said the move must mean the government is confident it has the assurances it requires from Jordan about his future trial.The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in January that the cleric could not be sent back without promises evidence gained through torture would not be used.The government has until midnight tonight to appeal but has instead focused its efforts on securing the necessary agreement from the Jordanian authorities.Keith Vaz , the chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee , says the Jordanian officials have given the government "all the assurances it needs" to deport Qatada.Ms May has to show she has made progress in the case by the start of next month or judges could have lifted 51-year-old Qatada's stringent bail conditions.The Home Secretary is due to deliver an emergency statement to the House of Commons at 3.30pm to update MPs on the developments.Qatada - who has been on bail from Long Lartin high-security jail in February under stringent conditions - is likely to launch a new legal challenge against deportation.His legal team are due to apply for bail at a hearing at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in central London later today, according to the Judicial Communications office.Labour had earlier accused the government of allowing "too much drift and delay". Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper  argued that Ms May should have acted sooner to prevent the cleric's release from prison in the first place and declared she needed to get "an urgent grip of this case".She said: "The Home Secretary needs to explain urgently to Parliament what she is doing to get Abu Qatada deported and to make sure there are strong enough safeguards to protect public safety in the meantime."Last week, the Home Office denied it had reached any deal with the Jordanian government. Jordan has previously said Qatada would get a fair trial .Qatada, who is also known as Omar Othman, was convicted in his absence in Jordan of involvement with terror attacks in 1998 and has featured in hate sermons found on videos in the flat of one of the September 11 bombers.He has been held for six-and-half-years, more than any other detainee in modern immigration history, and thwarted every attempt by the government so far to deport him.The cleric, who is considered a threat to the UK's national security, was released in February on some of the toughest bail conditions imposed since the September 11 attacks.He can leave his London home for two one-hour periods each day, is banned from taking his youngest child to school and cannot talk to anyone who has not been vetted by the security services.He is also banned from visiting mosques, leading prayers, giving lectures of preaching other than to offer advice to his wife and children at home.

Nicola Howard ● 5265d

I wonder what happens to the wife and five kids.

Sara Nathan ● 5265d

What do you think will happen ?

Keith Iddon ● 5265d

"I wonder what happens to the wife and five kids."If she has any sense she will do a kiss and tell for the Sun on Sunday. Acton Baby! Abu's Lover Tells all!

Colin Carroll ● 5265d

Brilliant idea!When the Sun freelancer came round just after they left, he wanted to know how Sarah, the burkha-wearing, Koran-chanting daughter fitted into Acton's pub scene!

Sara Nathan ● 5265d

Probably a rebellious drunken hussy.

Nicola Howard ● 5265d

I assume the Home Office will have to deport his entire family to Jordan, so that he can continue to enjoy his human right to a family life, as enshrined by the ECHR. Hopefully his taxpayer-funded legal team will see the wisdom in such a compassionate decision.

Peter Millman ● 5265d

If his legal team are so determined to keep this monster in this country, one has to ask, have they been radicalised, or are they just in it for  tax payers money?http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video#video=28980945

Nicola Howard ● 5265d

They cant deport British citizens - which surely the smaller children must be, given they are about 8 and 11.I have no problems with teh Qatada deportation but it's only humane to wonder about the family, the younger members of which can't have done anything wrong or had any say in their paretns' actions.

Sara Nathan ● 5265d

Are they registered as British citizens?  If a person enters this country illegally, what right do the children have to be British.  How do we know that Abu has not guided them for anti-social actions in later life?  Could they be sleepers?

Nicola Howard ● 5265d

Oh come on - they are British born children. I reckoned when he was first out on bail, the little boy would hardly havE met him, let alone come under ideological influence

Sara Nathan ● 5265d

Do you automatically get British citizenship if born here? If so, what stops people from coming in on a tourist visa to give birth and then claiming citizenship via the baby?

Susan Kelly ● 5264d

Colin, I think this is the fist time in the history of our encounters on this forum that I agree with you on this one.  If she had any sense, of course, she would do.  Stay here, sell her story, take that burka off and denounce him. But...she's probably so downtrodden and brainwashed into believing she doesn't actually have a choice as a mere woman.

Angela White ● 5264d

If Mr. Qatada's family members (does he only have one wife?) hold British passports and are therefore British citizens, then they must all be entitled to social security payments/pension rights/free schooling/free medical care, etc, etc. without having to have worked and paid taxes in this country.No wonder Mr. Qatada is grinning.  He has a team, of no doubt very expensive specialised lawyers paid for by British Taxpayers, who will continue to appeal each and every decision that the courts make against him.  And his family are taken care of by British taxpayers until they die.  Plus of course all the dependents that may join the bandwagon.  He is also being fed and watered in a clean and warm environment free of charge. No doubt someone will ask a Freedom of Information question concerning how much all this is costing you and me in these very hard financial times.

Dee Cook ● 5264d

I agree Dee.  He shouldn't have been allowed to have more than one wife and even though the children are innocent (until they are old enough to make decisions for themselves and who knows what brainwashing has taken place) he shouldn't have been allowed to reside here without as an illegal immigrant.  We are now paying the price for that.  When did we lose our backbone in this country?

Angela White ● 5264d

Who says he has more than one wife?I've never heard that mentioned before Doris came up with it out of nowhere.

Sara Nathan ● 5264d

I never said he had more than one wife.  I'm answering Dee's posed question, does he have more than one wife, and I answered he shouldn't be allowed to have one.It's not out of nowhere that idea.....it's their Law isn't it?  So, I would assume that he probably has more than one, given he can, unless he really has a heart and finds some love in it.  ?

Angela White ● 5264d

He's using his kids as emotional blackmail. We all agree it's cruel to split a family up without good reason.If he is being deported his family should join him.If he is an illegal immigrant surely he and therefore his do not have the same rights as British citizens.

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

Actually he hasn't really used the kids that much.I have been posing the question that's all.And I think it's quite unfair to assume multiple wives when that's no longer particularly usual among Muslims. Just adding another (wholly unnecessary) piece of fuel to the fire. There's plenty genuine to condemn him for without adding baseless slurs.

Sara Nathan ● 5264d

Sara, Dee posed a question (hence the question mark behind that question) and I too.  No-one actually said he has more than one wife, but he may do if that's their law, and it is their law as far as I'm aware.  Now you're saying there's plenty genuine to condemn him but in a post not too long ago I thought I remembered you saying "has he done anything wrong?" or something along that line. They guy is here illegally.  No-one wants him here.  He's got children and that complicates things. 

Angela White ● 5264d

If we could remove from the decision making process the mutually back patting and glad handing liberals who helped get us into this sorry mess we may get somewhere on issues like this. Can't see that happening anytime soon..

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

Qatada sounds a nasty piece of work but we have had ten years to charge him with offences and convict him, and have not done so.I just do not see the need to sling any accusation about his domestic life without any evidence. And I feel sorry for his family/children about which we know no evil.And if Keith's sneer is meant for me, I'm just not sure who the "mutually back patting and glad handing liberals who helped get us into this sorry mess." are, though I think I'd rather be accused of being a "glad-handing liberal" than whatever the opposite is!Where does mutual abuse get us on a forum like this or elsewhere?

Sara Nathan ● 5264d

Actually Sara no,it wasn't directed at you in particular.The opposite,imo would be someone who has a grasp of what is actually happening and who does not allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes and who genuinely has the interest of the people of this country at heart.Someone who is not living in a cosseted and cosy word where the reaity they live in is far removed from the vast majority.Someone who is not willing to tolerate just about anything because they are afraid of being called a racist.Clearer now?

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

Yup.Couldn't be an Acton resident then!I was just thinking whether it would be OK to assume anyone had done anything because their or the law allowed it... As in might Qatada have more than one wife cos his law says he can. But people would be upset if anyone said "You're female and haven't many children so you must have had several abortions" or "You are separated/unmarried so you must be gay" just because it's legal.Do you get my point?

Sara Nathan ● 5264d

On a practical note.Mr.and Mrs.Q's children when they have finished their studies will, presumably look for some form of gainful employment in order that they may support themselves independently.  In order to do this application forms will have to be filled in.  Perhaps a wise mother would move her family to somewhere where she and her children would not have such a high profile before they completed their studies - irrespective of what happens to the father of her children? 

Dee Cook ● 5264d

You make my point for me for some extent.We are only allowed to marry one partner in this country.Why should we even countenance anyone marrying more?The point about living in the real world isn't about your address Sara.It is about being in touch with what is happening in the broader world.Too many people who have vested interests in keeping the status quo have been making the decisions and choosing when to apply the law and when not too.People who sit on think tanks and are more interested in keeping their positions than what is good for the country,for instance.

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

She always looked quite withdrwan to me - I'd be amazed if she could make that sort of decision about the growing up children.If you do twitter (I'm getting quite keen - its so fast) you'd see that it all looks vanishingly far off anyhow - now the europeans have stepped in and said he cant be deported becasue there's an appeal. Seems wholly circular.@CCAssoc1 or @scnathan if you care!

Sara Nathan ● 5264d

Breaking News on LBC 97.3 at 2:30 this afternoon.An appeal was lodged last night with the ECHR, who have ruled that Abu cannot be deported.  This now means that his deportation has now been put on hold.  Now it could take many months to get rid of him.More tax payers money being wasted.

Nicola Howard ● 5264d

Surprise surprise! We are all being messed about yet again. Just deport him and his family and have done with it. Now I hope you can see what I was getting at about those who make the decisions.He has been in this country illegally for 19 years. We are being treated like mugs in our own country.

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

What a strange situation we now find ourselves in, the law of the land means nothing when we must abide by European Courts.I don't think that France would abide by this European Law - haven't they turfed out certain individuals without worrying about the consequences?

Jean F Fernandez ● 5264d

Strange? Not really. The European Court of Human Rights is the same age as me, created in 1959. To quote the introduction from the Wiki page:"The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or other contracting states, and the Court can also issue advisory opinions. The Convention was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe and all of its 47 member states are parties to the Convention. The court is not part of the European Union."The European Convention on Human Rights, from which it springs, was born out of the ashes of World War Two and its postscript, the Nuremburg trials. There was an understanding and acceptance that it was no longer acceptable for nations to operate their legal systems in isolation. The Convention set up international standards, which the Court is responsible for upholding. Britain was prominent in the creation of the Convention and Court, and should remain proud of its role.Yes, sometimes the process looks slow and feels frustrating, but the standards being applied are protections for us as well, should we find ourselves on the rough end of justice elsewhere. A legal process for which we seek to demand exceptions is soon no process at all. The UK is an infrequent defendant at the Court, but let's not fool ourselves that we have never been bang to rights - under governments of all flavours. There's quite an interesting series of pieces in the Guardian about the court and its work, to which this is a good starting point: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/27/european-court-human-rights-judgments

Steve Donnelly ● 5264d

Why should the ECHR dictate that we should keep an illegal immigrant, known for terrorist issues in this country?  From the actions of the  ECHR, it seems that they are a law unto themselves.I understand that this piece of human abhorrence is wanted in Spain, as well as the U.S, why not send him there?

Nicola Howard ● 5264d

Exactly Steve.It is 50 odd years old and needs a good revamp to bring it up to date and to make it more in tune with the realities of the modern world. Better still,why not have a European Court of Human Responsibilities to go hand in hand with it. Or even bring out some legislation of our own and go our own way.Don't suppose that would go down too well with Guardian readers though,all 200,000 of them.

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

He's not wanted in the US, Nicola. You are confusing him with Abu Hamza. Abu Qatada faces charges in his native Jordan.Britain was the driving force behind the ECHR, as Churchill wanted something that would prevent totalitarianism ever happening again. As founding members, are we really going to be the ones who flounce off in a huff?

Susan Kelly ● 5264d

I think you are trivialising it a little Susan.It is not a question of 'flouncing off in a huff' but rather of recognising when something is no longer fit for purpose and has little real relevance in the modern world where the threats are of a completely different nature than in Churchill's day. What is in place is far too open to abuse imo.It is human rights as defined by sheisters.

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

Keith, it's still kinda embarrassing to walk out on something you set up in the first place after 6 years spent fighting a fascist dictatorship.

Susan Kelly ● 5264d

Agree with you Keith.  It was once a great move forward and appropriate.  Times are changing and the tail is wagging the dog.  It is no longer an aid to democracy but a hindrance in many ways.

Angela White ● 5264d

We are not talking about fascist dictatorships Susan,not any more.It is the tyranny of individual that is now being protected by the act in many cases.The act does not seem to protect society from them at all.

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

From Sky News.Radical Qatada Blocks Deportation With AppealSky NewsBy Sam Kiley, defence and security editor | Sky News – 1 hour 28 minutes agoThe Government is locked in dispute with lawyers representing the alleged terrorist agitator Abu Qatada over the meaning of "three months" - arguing that he has missed a deadline for an appeal against his extradition to Jordan.The Home Office claims his appeal to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) , lodged on Wednesday, is 24 hours too late, while it tries to stop him putting another road block on the route to his expulsion from the UK.Home Secretary Theresa May told Sky News: "This is a delaying tactic from Abu Qatada and his lawyers."I am not at all surprised he's attempting to delay these proceedings."We have a very strong case for deportation... and of course it was only several hours after he and his lawyers had seen the strength of our case, of the Government's case, that they decided to make this referral."She continued: "We will wait to see the decision of the European Court. Then we will resume deportation."I recognise the frustration that the British public have... but I think it is right that we follow the proper, legal processes."I am also clear that we have the case now to deport Abu Qatada to Jordan."Prime Minister David Cameron later told reporters: "I am absolutely clear, the entire Government is clear, and frankly, I think the country is clear, that this man has no right to be in our country."He is a threat to our security, he has absolutely no further call on our hospitality, and he should be deported."That is what we are determined to achieve, no matter how difficult it is, no matter how long it will take. It will be done."However, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper has called on Mrs May to address the Commons to "clear up this shambles" and inform MPs on the latest developments."I don't think the Government should give Abu Qatada any legal loopholes, or create any legal loopholes, that he and his lawyers can take advantage of," she said."That's why I think this confusion and chaos over what date the deadline is really matters."The Home Office should have contacted the European Court to get the dates agreed in advance so there couldn't be any opportunity for Abu Qatada or his lawyers to do this."On Monday, Mrs May announced that his "deportation might still take time - the proper processes must be followed and the rule of law must take precedence".But she appeared to have been advised that his opportunity to appeal against the January 17 ruling from the European Court of Human Rights had passed.That ruling found that the UK could not extradite Qatada to face terrorism related charges in Jordan because there was a risk of his being tried using evidence gathered from two other witnesses under torture.But, crucially for the Government, the ruling accepted the principle that if the UK could get assurances from Jordan that evidence obtained under torture would not be used, and that Qatada would not face the death penalty or other sanctions which are illegal in Europe, he could be deported.Jordan agreed to offer these assurances - which triggered the UK deportation process.Qatada, once described as Osama bin Laden's representative in Europe, was already expected to appeal against this once the proceedings got underway following his re-arrest in London on Tuesday . These could have dragged on for months.The 51-year-old has fought off every attempt to deport him to Jordan, where he has been convicted in absentia of terror charges in 1989.The latest efforts to send him to the Middle East were the result of direct appeals by the British to King Abdullah II of Jordan.Now a panel of judges at the European Court will take "up to several weeks" to decide firstly whether his lawyers made the deadline for the appeal or not, and then whether to advance it to the Grand Chamber.The move comes as the 47 member nations of the Council of Europe prepare to meet in Brighton on Thursday for talks aimed at reforming the court and the types of cases it hears.Qatada, who was born in Bethlehem then part of Jordan, featured in hate sermons found on videos in the flat of one of the September 11 bombers.A Home Office spokesman said: "Qatada has no right to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, since the three-month deadline to do so lapsed at midnight on Monday night."His case should be heard in British courts, as the Home Secretary outlined to Parliament. In the meantime, he remains in custody."A spokesman for the Prime Minister said that the Government would oppose any bail application which followed from the latest attempt by Abu Qatada to appeal "vigorously".

Nicola Howard ● 5264d

I wonder who is paying for his lawyers?

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

I wonder who is paying for his lawyers?We are........aren't we ??

Ellie Rose ● 5264d

I wonder who is paying for his lawyers?Us of course.  We should stop this Legal Aid and, make him pay his own legal costs.  If he needs to make money to pay for it, there's always Soho....if anyone is that desperate.

Nicola Howard ● 5264d

My point exactly. Think of the cost over 19 years of providing this that and the other for this bloke.If you are an illegal immigrant,how can you be entitled to legal aid? I think the echr should fund his lawyers as they seem to be the ones who think it's ok for him to be here and for them to take weeks and months over the simplest of decisions.I'm sure if they were funding him,the whole process would be much quicker.

Keith Iddon ● 5264d

On what basis has joe public here concluded Abu Qatada is guilty of any crime apart from immigration?If they had any evidence, he would be locked up here or there.  Calm down, worry about your tax money going to those greedy people "running" this sytem, not by joe bloggs who abuses it.Get your kicks out of something else seriously.

Jay Bower ● 5264d

You need to get some sleep Jay.  Staying up to 2am posting on forums clearly is clouding your judgements.  Seriously, I'm not sure if he has committed any crimes over and above being an illegal immigrant, but he should be made to answer to the accusations from Jordan, for they clearly feel he has committed a crime.However, I personally feel the illegal immigrant part of this is being brushed aside.  I believe that's crime enough to be deported.  Don't you?  Would you allow a stranger into your home, uninvited and then, when you asked him to leave, he simply refused and got your neighbours to back him?  How would you feel?  That, to me, is no different to him entering my country uninvited and by fraudulent means, and then not leaving my country but eating me out of house and home.Hope you get a good rest tonight!  You may feel better in the morning.  ;-)

Angela White ● 5263d

The saga continues and is frustrating.However I quite like - and feel protected by - the knowledge that I am living in a state that thinks the rule of law is important - even if we don't all agree that the particular law is a good one.The other option - of a government/executive being able to over-rule an inconvenient law on its own or on the public's whim, doesnt really bear thinking about.

Sara Nathan ● 5263d

I see the ECHR are looking at updating the legislation.They obviously feel it warrants some change and is far too open to abuse.Or are they just pandering to public whim?

Keith Iddon ● 5263d

No, but, both of those are extremes.  Why can't we have Law that runs efficiently and why is it that we in this country as a majority think we have no control over our own Laws?  It's not healthy.

Angela White ● 5263d

Too true, Sara; hard cases make bad law, and all that.Interesting analysis of the present legal difficulty here (not the Guardian, can't vouch one way or another for their wet liberal credentials): http://www.headoflegal.com/2012/04/19/abu-qatada-and-the-law-of-time/Looks to me like the big problem Theresa May created for herself was overselling what was going on before it was clear she could deliver. This appears to have been driven by the government's pressing need for a 'good news' story. Dear old Kenneth Clarke was on the news this morning, doing his usual class act (he's not one of mine, but I admire the diminishing band of real professionals), asking what all the fuss was about as this was always goung to happen. Despite his role as Justice Secretary (ie chief legal minister), his is not a voice which seems to carry much weight in the present administration on these matters.Qatada is no one's idea of a martyr or a sympathetic victim. I particularly dislike the hypocrisy with which he evinces contempt for our western system of jurisprudence while using it to the full. None the less, I still want us to play by our rules, not by his.

Steve Donnelly ● 5263d

Our rules are just a recipe for things to stay just exactly how they are now.Delaying tactics,endless appeals, a bottomless pit of legal aid.That is why the legislation is being looked at by echr, and not before time.

Keith Iddon ● 5263d

They are not "our" rules but the rules - and of course lobbying to change them is sensible: they are not wholly fit for purpose.But we surely change them and then obey the new ones - we con't just decide we dont like this lot (which our governments signed up to and are bound by - they weren't imposed on us) and therefore ignore/defy them.

Sara Nathan ● 5263d

Home Secretary Stands Firm On Qatada DeadlineSky NewsSky News – 54 minutes agoThe Home Secretary has insisted European human rights judges should throw out an appeal by the radical cleric Abu Qatada against his deportation.Theresa May was forced to go to the Commons to make a statement after shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper tabled an emergency question.Mrs May told MPs the appeal had been lodged by Qatada's lawyers after the deadline had passed at midnight on Monday.She dismissed suggestions that the Home Office had miscalculated the date."The Government is clear that Abu Qatada has no right to refer the case to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), since the three-month deadline to do so lapsed at midnight on Monday," she said."The Government has written to the European Court to make clear our case that the application should be rejected because it is out of time."Qatada remains in custody and the Government would resist "vigorously" any bail application, she said.Lawyers for the radical cleric lodged an appeal with Europe's human rights judges following his latest arrest on Tuesday, effectively putting moves to return him to stand trial in his native Jordan on hold.However, after the court refused to confirm the Home Office had calculated the deadline correctly, Ms Cooper called on Mrs May to return to the Commons to explain what had happened.A miscalculation of the deadline would be a massive embarrassment for Mrs May and could again set back the authorities' long-running battle to put Qatada on a plane out of the country.Ms Cooper said in the Commons: "When the Home Secretary is accused of not knowing what day of the week it is, then chaos and confusion has turned into farce."She demanded to know whether the Home Office had clarified the deadline prior to the appeal being lodged, to which Mrs May replied: "Of course the Government were talking to the European court throughout the three months and we were talking to them on the basis that the deadline was April 16."Mrs May, who earlier described the appeal by Qatada's lawyers as a "delaying" tactic, acknowledged that the court could find that the deadline was midnight on Tuesday - as Qatada's lawyers argued - an hour after the appeal was lodged."It is a judgment that is going to be made by the panel of the Grand Chamber. They are the only final arbiters of what the deadline was," she said.When pressed by Labour former home secretary Alan Johnson, she said that if the Government were to be found to be in error, she would take full responsibility.A spokeswoman for the Strasbourg-based court said Qatada's appeal was lodged at 11pm local time (10pm BST) on Tuesday, but added: "We cannot comment on the view taken by the UK authorities about when the deadline expired."Justice Secretary Ken Clarke told Sky News he believes Mrs May has every reason to be confident in her decision.He was speaking in Brighton where he is hosting a conference of representatives from the 47 member nations of the Council of Europe aimed at reforming the ECHR and the types of cases it hears.Mr Clarke told Sky: "I'm sure the Home Office lawyers will sort it out. It's not unusual in a case to begin with a procedural wrangle."Prime Minister David Cameron has expressed his determination that Qatada will eventually be deported."I am absolutely clear, the entire Government is clear, and frankly I think the country is clear, that this man has no right to be in our country," he said on Wednesday.The latest appeal is separate from any others Qatada's legal team may make over the decision by Mrs May to continue with his deportation after receiving assurances from Jordan that evidence gained through torture would not be used against him.Instead it relates to a strand of the original decision of the Strasbourg-based court which found that the 51-year-old could be sent back to Jordan with diplomatic assurances that he would not be tortured.He is currently detained after a judge ruled his imminent deportation meant the risk he could try to flee while on bail had increased.His lawyers have said they will challenge all moves to deport him and Mrs May has warned MPs that it may still be "many months" before Qatada can be lawfully expelled from the UK.Qatada, who is said to have "wide and high-level support" among extremists, was convicted in his absence in Jordan of involvement with terror attacks in 1998 and now faces a retrial there.

Nicola Howard ● 5263d

I do think the shadow HS was ill-judged in saying this should be a resigning matter for May. She presumably asked for legal advice from Home Office lawyers and took it - Can't really see how that falls into being a resigning matter

Sara Nathan ● 5263d

Is it not the job of the opposition to run down any government.  I've got the opinion that the shadow HS is over ambitious and, will eventually shoot herself in the foot.  When you get Alan Sugar telling people not to vote for Ken Livingston, it makes you wonder what is going on in the Labour Party.  (You're Fired.) There again you have the PM saying he would like to put Abu on a plane himself and, accompany him to Jordan.Are we now in the position of, "Hollow words"?  Or are we going to stick two fingers up at the ECHR and, kick Abu out regardless?It's alright the government saying we have to abide by the law but, it's alright to enter into a suspect war.  If this government or previous administration can flex their muscles in one way, why not do the other way and, deport our undesirables from our shores.Does Abu have a British passport?  If so, withdraw it, and citizenship.  No country, no rights.

Nicola Howard ● 5263d

We need to go right back to the beginning of this sorry saga.My understanding is that this gentleman arrived on our shores illegally on a forged passport. (were his wife and children with him at the time?)Mistake number 1 - who let him in?  Was this a failing of our immigration people at his point of entry?Therefore if proper procedures had been followed at this stage our present Government would not be in such a mess....he would have immediately be sent home on the next available transport from whence he came .....and the expensive lawyers acting on his behalf would not have so much money in their bank account.I would suggest that there is obviously an urgent need to strength our immigration procedures at the point of entry into the UK.  In order that this kind of thing does not happen again in the future.

Dee Cook ● 5262d

Spot on, Dee.  I too hope they tighten the immigration procedures into the UK and detect forgeries.  Especially as the Olympics will be here soon.

Angela White ● 5262d

All that has happened so far is that the Border Agency is so stretched that it takes over an hour for non- EU nationals to even get to the passpoert desk at Terminal 5 - and this includes all those legit business people, bona fide residents, gifted musicians with perfectly correct visas. What sort of signal does that send about our willigness to do business with and engage with the rest of the world?Rhetoric doesnt work without resources.

Sara Nathan ● 5262d

.....perhaps the resources(money)are available, but they are not being used in the right places!

Dee Cook ● 5262d

One feels there should be a better system. Maybe people's bona fides could be checked that their point of departure when they are, in any case, hanging about for at least an hour. They do something like that on the Eurostar.

Susan Kelly ● 5262d