David Cameron "resents every penny" awarded to Abu Qatada

Going through the papers online this morning, I missed the fact that David Cameron had written in The Sun about the compensation being awarded to Abu Qatada (since his piece merely adjoins a news story rather than being an article in its own right).

Here are the key extracts:

"Unbelievably, taxpayers are going to have to pay him and other terrorist suspects thousands in compensation for detaining them. It could have been more, but I resent every penny... This case was not even about whether he might be tortured if returned home — just that he might not get a fair trial by our standards.

"Why should it be our responsibility and what should we do about it? First, we should have stronger border controls. A Conservative government will set up a dedicated Border Police force. If dangerous people slip through, we should bring them to justice. A Conservative government will tear up the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, so we can deal with human rights issues more sensibly.

"It makes a mockery of human rights if we can’t protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy them for everyone else."

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[Tommy Tanker]

I suppose it's fatuous to bring up that half of these 'preachers of hate' slipped into the UK under the last Conservative government.

Dave was even working for Michael Howard at the time.

[YMT]

Why not tell the EU where to stick it?

[William Blake's Ghost]

You're absolutely right Tommy. What happened well over a decade ago is fatuous....

[Libbie Miller]

Within our new "Bill of Rights", enable the highest court of the land to "overturn" or "sit above" the European Court of Human Rights.

But the conservatives are too cowardly for that, aren't they? So this sort of indescribable hypocrisy will continue.

[Prestwood Tory]

How off beam Tommy Tanker is. The reality is that even if your suggestion is true ZanuLab have had 12 years of goverment to do something about the problem. They haven't and we reap the "benefits" as a result.

It is to say the least ridiculous that Abu Qatada is receiving anything from this goverment beyond a one way ticket to Jordan to answer for his crimes. It makes my blood boil that we are going to pay this man compensation from our taxs for simply trying to keep ourselves safe. What a bizarre world we live in.

[Iain]

This whole problem stems from not being able to deport foreign nationals. Will he recover our soverignty so we can deport these undesirable people? Scraping the HRA is a start, but we also need to get out from under the European Court? Which is unlikely if Hesletine was correct last night on Question Time.

[steve]

Wev'e ALREADY got an ENGLISH Bill of Rights! just restore that so it has Primacy!.

Forget everything "British" as Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are all now nothing but EU Regions each with their own EU Regional Assembly which will report to Mother Brussels....they wont be pulling out of anything to do with the EU!!!!.

English Parliament NOW!

Referendum on English membership of the EU NOW!

[Patsy Sergeant]

No wonder Mr. Qatada, who is NOT a British citizen, looks so pleased with himself, as his over-fed body waddles around!

Yes, the Human Rights Act - one of Tony Blair's fancy ill-thought-out laws - should definitely be consigned to the scrap heap! Unfortunately, the ECHR could still be 'used'!

[Dave B]

According to Fraser Nelson:

"David Cameron's proposed Bill of Rights would itself enact the ECHR and, therefore, not be much use."

[Roger Evans]

Just a thought - if the judiciary had to award compensation money claimed against the public sector from their own budgets, we might see the pernicious 'compo culture' which these days warps every public policy decision, consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs...

[Edward Huxley]

Nice words, but Mr. Cameron can do nothing about this, or anything else. The laws are made in Brussels and Great Britain will become just regions of Euroland. The EU would never consent to a British Border Police Force. He knows it and he knows that we know. What a waste of time.

[CLAUDIA APICELLA]

MR.CAMERON.

THE WISEST MOVE FOR YOU IS TO PROMISE IN YOUR MANIFESTO AN IMMEDIATE REFERENDUM.
TWO QUESTIONS ONLY.
1.DO YOU WISH TO REMAIN IN EU?
2.DO YOU WANT A TRADE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE EU.
Then bring back Habeas Corpus and the British system of criminal law.
LAST BUT NOT least,toughen up, and I mean really toughen up the requirements for entry to UK.
NOTHING LESS WILL DO.

[Ross Warren]

"Unbelievably, taxpayers are going to have to pay him and other terrorist suspects thousands in compensation for detaining them. It could have been more, but I resent every penny"

Of course the Labour party and the police must act within the law. If we have any common sense then we will change the law to ensure that this is the last time somebody is able to get compensation in such circumstances.

[John Anslow]

You beat me to it, Steve at 13.24; and here is the part of the 1689 Bill of Rights that we might need to invoke if Abu Qatada has his way.

Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

[Tanfield]

As I have said on previous threads the only way to escape the European Convention on Human Rights completely is to leave the EU. Adherance to the Convention is a condition of EU membership and whilst that remains it will always override a British Bill of Rights or anything else of a similar nature from the UK Parliament. Dave knows this very well.

[Raj]

Then bring back Habeas Corpus and the British system of criminal law.

EU regulations didn't abolish Habeas Corpus - that was done by Labour. Most problems don't start in the EU, they start in London with gold-plating of EU rules.

NOTHING LESS WILL DO.

For UKIPers, maybe. Fortunately their support is not required to form any sort of majority.

[Victor, NW Kent]

What exactly would the EU Court of Justice have done if Jacqui Smith had put Abu Qatada on the first plane to Jordan once the Law Lords decision came through?

Absolutely nothing that they could do.
As far as the £2500 bonus he got who really cares? Just get rid of him.

[Jonathan]

Serious observation:

The written German constitution asserts the primacy of German laws in Germany. The German courts have upheld this principle – even where German law contradicts EU law.

Take just one example – Men in Germany are required to undertake one year of National Service or community work. The same requirement is not mandatory for women. A clear and obvious breach of the EU’s equality laws - but the German law remains on the statute book nonetheless, and why not, if that’s what the Germans want.

Might point is this – why don’t we copy this constitutional provision – word for word (after translation of course). If the EU then chose to challenge it – Cameron should turn round and say – after you Frau Merkel.

My wife’s family are from Germany and trust me this constitutional provision is a sacred cow in Germany. A bit like the NHS in England - no politician would dare allow the EU to un-pick it. Hence, Germany (and their federalist allies) would be forced to support Cameron’s new law in any battle with the EU Commission. And when have you heard of Germany losing an argument in Brussels.

[Edward]

I hate to say it but Roger Evans' suggestion that, in effect, the judiciary pay this compensation from its own budget is one of the most ill thought out and inane comments I have seen on here for ages.

Just some of the reasons for this are:

- It is the Government, not the judiciary, which has chosen to break the law.
- It is Parliament, not the judiciary, which has chosen not to change the law so that the Government's actions don't breach it.
- It would be a gross denial of basic natural justice for the judiciary to have to decide how much to penalise itself.
- It is the ECtHR, not the British judiciary, which has made this decision [Note to readers and the Conservative leadership: the European Court of Human Rights is completely different from and separate from the European Court of Justice which enforces the rules, regulations and directives of the European Union]

That said, I am all for reducing the power of the ECtHR to tell British judges and the British Parliament what to do.

[pp]

I do resent the fact that the government behaved in a way that made compensation necessary.

But if it is the law then it is the law - The government are the very last people who should behave as if above the law (has the DNA of innocent people been removed from the register yet? etc... etc...).

It is parliament that is sovereign, not the government.

[Jonathan]

The written German constitution asserts the primacy of German laws in Germany. The German courts have upheld this principle – even where German law contradicts EU law.

Take just one example – Men in Germany are required to undertake one year of National Service or community work. The same requirement is not mandatory for women. A clear and obvious breach of the EU’s equality laws - but the German law remains on the statute book nonetheless, and why not, if that’s what the Germans want.

Might point is this – why don’t we copy this constitutional provision – word for word (after translation of course). If the EU then chose to challenge it – Cameron should turn round and say – after you Frau Merkel.

My wife’s family are from Germany and trust me this constitutional provision is a sacred cow in Germany. A bit like the NHS in England - no politician would dare allow the EU to un-pick it. Hence, the Germany (and their federalist allies) would be forced to support Cameron’s new law in any battle with the EU Commission. And when have you heard of Germany losing an argument in Brussels.

[Edward]

I also think that I disagree with Tanfield who basically hints that if we want to change the current position vis-a-vis the ECHR we must leave the EU as "adherence" to it is a condition of EU membership.

The Treaty of Amsterdam calls for respect for the fundamental rights guaranteed by the ECHR while formalising the judgments of the Court of Justice on the matter. I do not consider this to require in any way "adherence" to the ECHR or to be a condition of EU membership.

[Steve Tierney]

Jonathan at 15:01 :

Great argument! Very fair points. Precisely what we need IS to acknowledge EU law while stating, clearly, that our own laws and courts and the PRIMARY ones. I can't think of a bettre solution.

[Steve Tierney]

Or "better", even.

[Iain]

"It is the Government, not the judiciary, which has chosen to break the law."

True but it is Judges like Justice Collins who, in his interpretation of the law, has made it almost impossible for us to have any control over our borders, and been the architect of the shambles we have.

[Iain]

"Great argument! Very fair points. Precisely what we need IS to acknowledge EU law while stating, clearly, that our own laws and courts and the PRIMARY ones. I can't think of a bettre solution."

Steve Tierney, but we do

// Oath and the Act of Supremacy as published in 1559:
I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities, and do promise that from henceforth I shall bear faith and true allegiance to the Queen's Highness///

Or

//Bill of Rights 1689
I A B doe sweare That I doe from my Heart Abhorr, Detest and Abjure as Impious and Hereticall this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes Excommunicated or Deprived by the Pope or any Authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God. //

Its just that our MP's don't dare have the law enforced as it would throw their lousy EU project out the window, and they would have to stand and face a charge of treason.

[Adam-]

Parliament should immediately rush through some legislation overturning the court's decision.

Parliament is sovereign etc. etc.

[Forlornehope]

Make attempting to enter the UK on a false passport an offence punishable by 30 years in gaol. In this instance a bit of retrospective legislation might even be acceptable.

[David Belchamber]

Jonathan at 15.01 (and at 15.05 to emphasise a most valuable point):

"The written German constitution asserts the primacy of German laws in Germany. The German courts have upheld this principle – even where German law contradicts EU law".

It would seem to be a very sensible first step to adopt that principle in this country and then have our own Bill of Human Rights, either existing or new, to avoid such stupidities in future.

If that doesn't work, then our membership of the EU must be seriously considered.

[Yet Another Anon]

Simple - leave the EU, leave the European Court of Human Rights, Leave the European Court of Justice, abolish the Human Rights Act, introduce forms of Capital and Corporal Punishment into prisons, bring back internment and then make people like Abu Qatada suffer for their wickedness.

[David Bray]

Isn't amazing that all the hyper-ventilating Better Off Out types who rush to post here STILL can't tell the difference between the EU and the Council of Europe, the ECJ or the ECHR?

I thought you wanted to be out of the EU but in Europe - are you sure you know which way round you want it?!

[Seamus]

'I suppose it's fatuous to bring up that half of these 'preachers of hate' slipped into the UK under the last Conservative government'.

Aye but New York, Madrid, London et al hadn't kicked off then.

[Sally Roberts]

""The written German constitution asserts the primacy of German laws in Germany. The German courts have upheld this principle – even where German law contradicts EU law"."

Doesn't this rather go to prove that the Germans are perfectly able to be "In Europe But Not Run By Europe"?

[resident leftie]

He has not been tried, nor found guilty of any crime. No matter how hateful you find him, he has been locked up without charge. Even the language "terrorist suspect" is prejudiced (in the legal sense).

The law applies to everyone, not just people you like.

[T. England]

This insane payout is great!
It is Labour that have allowed this man claim compensation, the public are really angry about this aren’t they?
Labour keep on doing the same sort of lefty thing time after time & because what they are doing is in their socialist makeup they can’t stop themselves, this is positively great news, because it is exactly this insane way of thinking that have got so many of the public to boiling point & just want it to stop.

I hope Labour continues to live their socialist dream & wind the public up even more, if that’s at all possible!

All good for the Tories :o)

[Iain]

"He has not been tried, nor found guilty of any crime."

Only because this Labour Government failed to value the lives of its own citizens.

His nephew took Western hostages in the Yemen, some of them British , in the resulting shoot out, several of the hostages died. Qatada was implicated in the hostage taking, yet our useless Government did nothing.

PS he also came here on a false identity, that alone should have been enough to get him kicked out!

[David Cooper]

Just following up on the ECHR issue as flagged up by Michael Heseltine last night, when it was suggested that no UK government would ever take the step of repudiating its willingness to abide by that court's judgments. He mentioned (if I recall correctly) that its origins lay in ensuring that what happened to Eastern European victims of the Second World War would never happen again.

Surely it is not unreasonable to take the view that because the ECHR is now being exploited by claimants who cannot conceivably place themselves on the same footing as WW2 victims, we should be perfectly entitled (using the current example) to put an undesirable on a plane home and ignore adverse ECHR rulings, or the risk of adverse rulings, where in the sole discretion of the UK government it is reasonable to do so?

[Jonathan]

Firstly – apologies for the earlier double post re: German constitution.

I’d just like to add one further observation to the debate; just why are so many pro-European Conservatives scared of taking on the EU Commission? The UK is the second highest net contributor to the EU – every year. If we were kicked out / suspended or left of our own accord, which country or combination of countries would volunteer to make-up this shortfall in the current financial climate? Ditto our negative balance of trade payments wit Europe. Yes, an end to free trade with the continent would hit British industry very hard, but it would also hurt Germany, France, Holland, Ireland, Spain etc….

In these circumstances – if we played hardball there is a deal to be done. Now of course we would like to see the CAP reformed but for obvious reasons France would never agree to that – but on the issue of the Human’s Rights Act and the supremacy of British law - aka the German model - which continental GVN would really be willing to force Britain’s exit on this issue. Sure some arch-federalists like France and Belgium would talk tough, but would they really risk higher unemployment and greater EU contributions for their own countries, just to defend a principle that has little or no bearing on their own domestic issues. Indeed, I’m sure that some GVN’s – especially in Eastern Europe – would have a lot of sympathy (albeit in private) with the British position.

Of course, for the negotiations to work – Cameron would have call the commissions bluff i.e., threaten to quit the EU – but with a truck load of Conservative Euro-sceptic MPs covering his back in the House of Commons – to my mind this would seem like a credible threat. Remember, also the Human Rights Act isn’t exactly popular with the British people or influential organs of the British press (the BBC excluded). In these circumstances – I reckon the UK would win the poker game; just like Maggie did with the rebate.

[pp]

Adam

You may mock - but parliament probably does need to act.

Not to cancel the awards per se, but to ensure that the circumstances that the government brought about so leading to the awards do not re-occur.

A vote of no confidence in the government would be a good start - even if not likely in the short term.

could do if it so wished.

However you will see from the quote in the original blog:

Why should it be our responsibility and what should we do about it?

That it is accepted that we have taken on the responsibility, the exasperation is at that being the case, not with

[Iain]

Jonathan, I agree, our politicians and Foreign Office are so useless that even when we hold THE important card, money, we still get shafted by the EU. The money card should be more than enogh leverage to get what we want. The question is do our politicians 'want' or are they playing a two faced game with us?

[Ross Warren]

"He has not been tried, nor found guilty of any crime. No matter how hateful you find him, he has been locked up without charge. Even the language "terrorist suspect" is prejudiced (in the legal sense).

The law applies to everyone, not just people you like.
"

Yes Labour has acted in a monstrous way at times. Personally I would handle this man
within the law. He will eventually go to far and then we have him banged to rights. If he is such a danger to our security that he can no longer be allowed on our streets, and we cannot find a clear breech of our law. Should we not consider a more total removal as a matter for our SIS. Mossad would know how to deal with him. We can expel people it is something Nations can do. In either case if he is truely our enemy we should not pay him one penny no way no how.

[David]

Personally, I'd rather my rights weren't subject to the whim of Parliament or government. Don't trust them not to abuse such power. The fact that Qatada's rights are protected ultimately means so are mine. I'd not have it any other way.

[pp]

How about Binyam Mohamed - why is this Ethiopian being brought back to the UK?

Don't pakistan want to prosecute him for travelling on a false passport?

Or will he be tried here? and (presumably) deported if convicted.

[Iain]

"How about Binyam Mohamed - why is this Ethiopian being brought back to the UK?"

It seems we are getting the whole bloody clan. His parents are flying in from Ethiopia and his sisters from the US. So clearly there were many places for him to go other than the UK, Ethiopia US where his 'right' of a family life would be up held, or Pakistan where he was last resident.

It would seem the Foreign Office didn't try very hard to not have him here!

[The Bishop Swine]

"Or will he be tried here? and (presumably) deported if convicted"

I might regret saying this but we both know he would rather be our guest than theirs. I suspect he would rather be here were we are nice sane and rational and slow to inflict pain.

The fact of these guys being allowed to continue in existence, should persuade our enemies to our better nature. That still they call us Satan, and swear to slit our throats, is why they are so dangerous.
If Both Christians and Jews stand accused and reviled, there is little we can do to persuade them of our better nature. In such a case a quick call to arms to deliver the answer is always preferred to being roasted alive by their positioned to roast H_Bombs.
Its a very real problem. Islam wants to rush us to judgement, were as Christians having waited so long are happy to wait some more.
Jews are the target of Islam we retain all of the restraints. Whilst we continue as democracys we will continue in our support of Jews. In any case the arabs will have to wait until the temple is built.

[Dorothy Wilson]

In the case of Abu Qatada, can't we simply send him [and the rest of them] a bill for the cost of the legal aid and all the other benefits he has received whilst in this country? I am sure that far exceeds the £2500 compensation he has been awarded so he owes us rather than the other way round.

[Dorothy Wilson]

Jonathan @ 17.40

Well said. There is a briefing note prepared by Ruth Lea on the Global Vision website that sets out some of the net costs to us of the EU over a 9 year period. It doesn't take account of the burden of regulation but makes interesting reading all the same. So too do the recent figures released by the Taxpayers' Alliance detailing the costs of the CFP.

[Kate]

I think Britain should remove itself from Europe and put a stop to anymore immigrants moving to Britain, before the benefits service, NHS and Education systems collapse and I think France and Italy will follow our example because its what all the ordinary folk want really. Our country is on the verge of collapse with immigrants feeding off us and contributing nothing in taxes. They don't want to pay tax or contribute to our country they just want to get fat off our hard labour.

[Sam R]

Glad to read that DC has at last picked up on at least one of the suggestions made by a CPF group - that the Human Rights Act be repalced by a Bill of Rights (we had also added AND DUTIES).

The 1689 Bill of Rights was a bit rich in asserting: "That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.", considering that the rightful king had been usurped by the foreign potentate William III.

[pp]

Sam R

When I read about 'duties' and 'responsibilities' being imposed on individuals just because they are born, I think slavery.

Just as no parliament can bind a future one, so no generation can bind a future one.

If there are things you beleive to be good for individuals to do, then make your case to those indviduals, don't force them to follow your rules (unless you are happy to follow my rules for you?).

I act as I do because I chose to, not due to externally imposed 'duties' or 'responsibilities'.

[rugfish]

In Sevenoaks in Kent, BNP candidate Paul Golding, won the formerly safe Labour seat of Swanley St Mary’s with a 41.8% vote share. The Labour and Conservative candidates were trounced in a ward that the BNP had never contested before.

In North West Leicestershire, BNP candidate Roy Harban, gained a 28.1% vote share in Thringstone pushing the Liberal Democrat candidate into 4th place in another ward that the BNP had never fought before.

In Lewisham, BNP candidate Tess Culnane, polled 10.6% of the vote in Downham ward where the BNP haven’t stood a candidate for seven years.

In Harrogate, BNP candidate Steven Gill, polled 9.1% - a 50% increase on the vote share gained by the BNP candidate back May 2007 and three times as many votes cast for the Labour candidate.

[David]

These BNP people are a threat to our way of life. Lets just lock them up, now.

[The Bishop Swine]

"These BNP people are a threat to our way of life. Lets just lock them up, now."

Internment, or how to turn a small national party into a major one. Any such move against the BNP would be a massive mistake.The European elections are very likely to be a breakthrough in representation for the BNP.The only sane way to deal with the BNP is to absorb them.We do this by becoming a proper ONE NATION,British unionist, monarchist and principled alternative to nu-labour.If that means swinging to the right then so be it. The Nation is crying out for a Conservative government not for a blue-labour continuation of failed social policies.
We simply cannot continue to ignore them or the increasingly large number of disaffected voters they represent.

[David]

And yet people seem perfectly okay with interning this Qatada chap.

[The Bishop Swine]

"And yet people seem perfectly okay with interning this Qatada chap."

I am not, unless he has clearly broken the law. However nobody can honestly say the BNP are enemies of Great Britain this guy is ,and we should not be afraid to use the SIS against him.

[David]

Really? They hate Jews, he hates Jews, so both are just as threatening to me.

Once he's dealt with by the SIS, who should the government move on to next? You? Me? If his rights are guaranteed, so are mine. If his can be overturned at whim by a government, so can mine. I don't trust government enough. You may defer to them, but no thanks, not me.

[anthony.scholefield]

As other posters have well put it,the Binyan Mohammed matter is another landmine the political class have casually allowed the leftist pro-multicultural media to make headway with.
The Guy was living in Afghanistan,he was not a UK citizen so why are we having him back here with much hosannaing from the social liberals etc.
Politically it is another easy goal for the Conservatives but two things, Mr Cameron.First,stop all the tugging of your shirt by the liberals as you go up to strike and
second,take perfect aim-no half baked proposals just to get another soundbite.

[Adrian Wainer]

Where was Cameron, when Mr Wilders was banned from entering the UK? The BNP are simply unacceptable as a mainstream political party, whilst they still are in to the race thing. That said, I hope people will go out and vote BNP as the only thing which will change Labour from actively collaborating with the Islamofascists and Cameron's Tories from passively appeasing the Islamofascists, is the fear that the BNP will start to destroy them at the ballot box. Right, if Labour and the Conservatives want to align themselves with Islamofascists, who would happily set up a British version of Auschwitz to exterminate everybody they don't like, it is tough love if the electorate decides they are going to teach Labour and the Conservatives a lesson at the ballot box.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/the-muslim-march-the-bbc-didn%E2%80%99t-let-you-see-2/

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

[David]

"Right, if Labour and the Conservatives want to align themselves with Islamofascists, who would happily set up a British version of Auschwitz to exterminate everybody they don't like"

That's ironic given both the BNP's denial of the Holocaust, and the BNP's attitude to non-whites. Both of which are as incompatible with true British values as Islamic extremism.

[Super Blue]

David,

You have said it all,

Stephen.