kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Done - sent them the link and explained what was happening...
Britain Institutes Death Penalty
- Thread starter The Black Hand
- Start date
CyberRose said:
Toby has often claimed that he's very willing to be the executioner. Him and his wife.
The Black Hand
Unclean
CyberRose said:
Well no offence but you're talking cak. I was talking generally...
Das Uberdog
remembers the alamo
Well - the research doesn't compliment my memory of events, but as these links show (amongst thousands) the gov. has no problem riding roughshod over the Convention on Human Rights if it suits them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4770231.stm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1774441,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4770231.stm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1774441,00.html
The Black Hand
Unclean
CyberRose said:
No boss - it is you who are full of shite. The point is these are 'volunteers' who are very well paid to uphold the law - there is a huge difference (a contradiction) then if these fail to uphold the law.
Stop it now tithead, I really do not want to argue further with you. We're both not going to change.
The Black Hand
Unclean
CyberRose said:
Yawn yawn. You think u r right, I know I am
leave it, it is not worth it cos we're never going to agree.AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
May not have been caught by the Google web crawlers at that time.jonH said:
Alternatively, as a name transliterated into English from a foreign language - what script do they use in Uzbekistan? - there may be several variations on the spelling of his name.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
chymaera said:
chymaera reads word foreigner and jumps to conclusion shocker.
The Black Hand
Unclean
Latest update is that he will be likely to be deported today from the London detention centre he is in. There is some good protest work being done on this case, see link for examples.
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386667.html
https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386667.html
lewislewis
Lumumba Cymru
This is why I dislike being part of Britain.
A fundamental disregard for human rights, no matter whether its Labour or the Tories running Westminster.
A fundamental disregard for human rights, no matter whether its Labour or the Tories running Westminster.
The Black Hand
Unclean
From Craig Murrays website
GOod news - but nowhere near enough;
"November 29, 2007
A Chance to Fight
Am here in Accra and have picked up the vital news from Bob Marshall-Andrew's office, that Jahongir Sidikov's deportation has been postponed so his case can be reviewed. This is great news, but it gives us no more than a chance to fight. It makes further representations now still more urgent and important. This is particularly so in view of the Home Office's initial reply to Bob Marshall-Andrews:
"The problem I have is that the correspondence you enclose from a Ms Catherine Brown appears to have no connection with Mr Sidikov. I know you will understand that Home Office records on individuals have to be treated as confidential and cannot be disclosed to third parties. As you are not Mr Sidikov's MP and as Ms Brown has no connection with his case, you will appreciate that I am therefore prevented from discussing the details of this case with you. Please be assured, however, that the information you have submitted will be placed on file and will be fully considered by the Border and Immigration Agency before a final decision is made on Mr Sidikov's case. In more general terms, I confirm that it is Home Office policy to remove political dissidents to Uzbekistan, if the independent judiciary has deemed an asylum claim to have no basis."
I think this must rank with the most astonishing phrases ever uttered by a British government:
I confirm that it is Home Office policy to remove political dissidents to Uzbekistan
The temporary suspension of Sidikov's deportation does not affect that policy. It is a policy which is vicious in the extreme as we know perfectly well what happens to political dissidents in Uzbekistan. I think the sentence above is in itself indicative of the hole in the soul of New Labour, and sufficient reason never to even consider voting for them again.
That policy needs to be challenged. So does the "fast track" system by which Sidikov went from hearing to appeal to deportation in just a fortnight. We were told the "fast track" was for prima facie spurious cases from "safe" countries like Belgium. How on earth could a dissident from the worst country in the world to send a dissident get fast-tracked?
It was the fast track procedure that directly caused the failure of Sidikov's appeal. His solicitor had under a week's notice of the date, and witnesses - including myself, who was in Africa - could not make it for the hearing at that notice. The judge then refused to accept written evidence from several witnesses living abroad, on the grounds she could not be certain of the authenticity of the statements. She did not give time to establish their authenticity, just refused to accept them. She suggested they were forged because they had similar grammatical errors such as incorrect use of the definite and indefinite article. That was because they were all written by Uzbeks who do not have the article - my Uzbek partner always makes the same mistake in English. I know for certain that the statements were authentic. The judge's behaviour was a disgrace, and let me be plain I do have contempt of her court, deep contempt. But she was merely indicative of the general mindset of the "Fast-track", a disgraceful device by which the government seeks to curry favour with the tabloids by increasing deportation numbers.
Boosting New Labour with focus groups infinitely outweighs the torture to death of the odd dissident.
Posted by craig on November 29, 2007 8:34 PM in the category Uzbekistan
Comments
I feel enormous relief and great shame at the actions of court and government. I am furious that safeguarding privacy is used as a reason not to discuss details of cases (I've heard this one before). Evidently disclosing private details which might help an asylum-seekers case is regarded as gross breach of individual rights - sending the same individual back to torture and death is, however, quite acceptable.
Posted by: kazbel at November 29, 2007 10:49 PM
In the above instance, of course, the refusal to discuss private details is intended to imply that they have special knowledge which they refuse to share with us. In fact they have less knowledge of the case than we do, so the subterfuge is a bust. As Craig has pointed out, the judge refused to accept or even to confirm the authenticity of what special knowledge of the case existed. Again, as an expatriate Brit, I am ashamed of my government.
Having written to the prime minister's office and the foreign and home offices once on the matter, I would be interested to hear others' suggestions for further action. Is it all up to court representation now, or is there cause to continue to agitate in the political realm?
Posted by: Raven at November 29, 2007 11:30 PM
If Craig or readers would recommend some names and addresses, we can have amazon send them gift copies of Murder in Samarkand pronto. (My budget will stretch to 10-20 copies.)
This might make some difference with civil servants or other officials who have some influence but are genuinely uninformed. (It does appear, for example, that if the judge had been better informed, the "fast-track" decision would have been different.) I presume a public official's office address is public information, so they cannot hide behind the confidentiality argument here.
Posted by: Cide Hamete Benengeli at November 30, 2007 8:09 AM
My guess is that it was the Tuesday evening Channel 4 news item that tipped the balance and won the reprieve. It was a powerful extended piece with copious interview inserts with Craig. It seems to me that 'more of the same' offers the best prospect of turning the reprieve into a confirmation, especially if it can be presented as a political rather than mere administrative matter, which of course it is. Politicians are petrified of 'bad' publicity and that was bad. They are likely to be responsive to more like it. The last thing Jacqui Smith (and the entire government) want right now is to be forced into a public defence of the Uzbek regime. On the other hand, an opportunity for them to show their deeply compassionate and caring natures could prove irresistible.
So more work on Channel 4 plus weighty Guardian/Times/Telegraph/Independent articles are what is needed
Posted by: Sabretache at November 30, 2007 9:11 AM
I have had a reply from Paul Burstow MP, who wrote:
I was very concerned by the points you raised. I have written to David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, enclosing a copy of your e-mail and the accompanying article and asking for his comments. I have chosen to take this via the Foreign Office rather than the Home Office, as would be usual in cases of deportation, since the main thrust of Mr Murray's arguments seem to be challenging the operation of out consular staff overseas.
GOod news - but nowhere near enough;
"November 29, 2007
A Chance to Fight
Am here in Accra and have picked up the vital news from Bob Marshall-Andrew's office, that Jahongir Sidikov's deportation has been postponed so his case can be reviewed. This is great news, but it gives us no more than a chance to fight. It makes further representations now still more urgent and important. This is particularly so in view of the Home Office's initial reply to Bob Marshall-Andrews:
"The problem I have is that the correspondence you enclose from a Ms Catherine Brown appears to have no connection with Mr Sidikov. I know you will understand that Home Office records on individuals have to be treated as confidential and cannot be disclosed to third parties. As you are not Mr Sidikov's MP and as Ms Brown has no connection with his case, you will appreciate that I am therefore prevented from discussing the details of this case with you. Please be assured, however, that the information you have submitted will be placed on file and will be fully considered by the Border and Immigration Agency before a final decision is made on Mr Sidikov's case. In more general terms, I confirm that it is Home Office policy to remove political dissidents to Uzbekistan, if the independent judiciary has deemed an asylum claim to have no basis."
I think this must rank with the most astonishing phrases ever uttered by a British government:
I confirm that it is Home Office policy to remove political dissidents to Uzbekistan
The temporary suspension of Sidikov's deportation does not affect that policy. It is a policy which is vicious in the extreme as we know perfectly well what happens to political dissidents in Uzbekistan. I think the sentence above is in itself indicative of the hole in the soul of New Labour, and sufficient reason never to even consider voting for them again.
That policy needs to be challenged. So does the "fast track" system by which Sidikov went from hearing to appeal to deportation in just a fortnight. We were told the "fast track" was for prima facie spurious cases from "safe" countries like Belgium. How on earth could a dissident from the worst country in the world to send a dissident get fast-tracked?
It was the fast track procedure that directly caused the failure of Sidikov's appeal. His solicitor had under a week's notice of the date, and witnesses - including myself, who was in Africa - could not make it for the hearing at that notice. The judge then refused to accept written evidence from several witnesses living abroad, on the grounds she could not be certain of the authenticity of the statements. She did not give time to establish their authenticity, just refused to accept them. She suggested they were forged because they had similar grammatical errors such as incorrect use of the definite and indefinite article. That was because they were all written by Uzbeks who do not have the article - my Uzbek partner always makes the same mistake in English. I know for certain that the statements were authentic. The judge's behaviour was a disgrace, and let me be plain I do have contempt of her court, deep contempt. But she was merely indicative of the general mindset of the "Fast-track", a disgraceful device by which the government seeks to curry favour with the tabloids by increasing deportation numbers.
Boosting New Labour with focus groups infinitely outweighs the torture to death of the odd dissident.
Posted by craig on November 29, 2007 8:34 PM in the category Uzbekistan
Comments
I feel enormous relief and great shame at the actions of court and government. I am furious that safeguarding privacy is used as a reason not to discuss details of cases (I've heard this one before). Evidently disclosing private details which might help an asylum-seekers case is regarded as gross breach of individual rights - sending the same individual back to torture and death is, however, quite acceptable.
Posted by: kazbel at November 29, 2007 10:49 PM
In the above instance, of course, the refusal to discuss private details is intended to imply that they have special knowledge which they refuse to share with us. In fact they have less knowledge of the case than we do, so the subterfuge is a bust. As Craig has pointed out, the judge refused to accept or even to confirm the authenticity of what special knowledge of the case existed. Again, as an expatriate Brit, I am ashamed of my government.
Having written to the prime minister's office and the foreign and home offices once on the matter, I would be interested to hear others' suggestions for further action. Is it all up to court representation now, or is there cause to continue to agitate in the political realm?
Posted by: Raven at November 29, 2007 11:30 PM
If Craig or readers would recommend some names and addresses, we can have amazon send them gift copies of Murder in Samarkand pronto. (My budget will stretch to 10-20 copies.)
This might make some difference with civil servants or other officials who have some influence but are genuinely uninformed. (It does appear, for example, that if the judge had been better informed, the "fast-track" decision would have been different.) I presume a public official's office address is public information, so they cannot hide behind the confidentiality argument here.
Posted by: Cide Hamete Benengeli at November 30, 2007 8:09 AM
My guess is that it was the Tuesday evening Channel 4 news item that tipped the balance and won the reprieve. It was a powerful extended piece with copious interview inserts with Craig. It seems to me that 'more of the same' offers the best prospect of turning the reprieve into a confirmation, especially if it can be presented as a political rather than mere administrative matter, which of course it is. Politicians are petrified of 'bad' publicity and that was bad. They are likely to be responsive to more like it. The last thing Jacqui Smith (and the entire government) want right now is to be forced into a public defence of the Uzbek regime. On the other hand, an opportunity for them to show their deeply compassionate and caring natures could prove irresistible.
So more work on Channel 4 plus weighty Guardian/Times/Telegraph/Independent articles are what is needed
Posted by: Sabretache at November 30, 2007 9:11 AM
I have had a reply from Paul Burstow MP, who wrote:
I was very concerned by the points you raised. I have written to David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, enclosing a copy of your e-mail and the accompanying article and asking for his comments. I have chosen to take this via the Foreign Office rather than the Home Office, as would be usual in cases of deportation, since the main thrust of Mr Murray's arguments seem to be challenging the operation of out consular staff overseas.
Similar threads
- Poll
