Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 25, 2012 21:53:27 GMT
Apparently, at least before 2004, BBC's security correspondent - Frank Gardner, had a private conversation with the Queen about Abu Hamza, in which she expressed her frustration with his activities, and why he was still free to pursue them.
Gardner claims that she also revealed to him that she had raised the matter with the then Home Secretary.
How do we know this?
Because Gardner revealed this conversation on the Today programme.
Immediately afterwards the BBC and Frank Gardner wrote a letter of apology to the Queen for divulging confidential information.
So we are expected to believe that this betrayal of trust was inadvertent?
That despite the years since this conversation, whenever Abu Hamza has been an issue, Gardner has remembered to uphold the confidence entrusted in him. Suddenly now 'it slipped out' and he's apologetic.
Yeah right!
The insidious BBC and Gardner decided to betray the confidence and get away with it by immediately issuing an apology.
Rot in Hell!
Gardner claims that she also revealed to him that she had raised the matter with the then Home Secretary.
How do we know this?
Because Gardner revealed this conversation on the Today programme.
Immediately afterwards the BBC and Frank Gardner wrote a letter of apology to the Queen for divulging confidential information.
The BBC said it quickly realised its error and issued the apology. A spokesman said it was not the result of any complaint from Buckingham Palace.
The letter said: “This morning on the Today programme our correspondent Frank Gardner revealed details of a private conversation which took place some years ago with The Queen.
“The conversation should have remained private and the BBC and Frank deeply regret this breach of confidence. It was wholly inappropriate.
“Frank is extremely sorry for the embarrassment caused and has apologised to the Palace.”
So we are expected to believe that this betrayal of trust was inadvertent?
That despite the years since this conversation, whenever Abu Hamza has been an issue, Gardner has remembered to uphold the confidence entrusted in him. Suddenly now 'it slipped out' and he's apologetic.
Yeah right!
The insidious BBC and Gardner decided to betray the confidence and get away with it by immediately issuing an apology.
Rot in Hell!
BBC apologises for revealing Queen's Hamza concerns
The BBC has apologised for revealing that the Queen had privately expressed concern over why Abu Hamza had not been arrested.
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has lost his fight over extradition to the United States
The corporation’s respected security correspondent Frank Gardner claimed in a conversation he had with the Queen several years ago, she had spoken of her frustration that Hamza was still at liberty and spreading messages of hatred,
He said she has also revealed she had raised the issue with the Home Secretary of the time.
It is not known when the conversation took place but the hate cleric was arrested on charges under the Terrorism Act in late 2004.
But within hours of Mr Gardner’s revelations, the BBC wrote to Buckingham Palace apologising for breaching the confidence of a private conversation.
It said the comments were “wholly inappropriate” and that Mr Gardner “deeply regretted” the breach and was “extremely sorry”.
Former Home Secretaries contacted over the issue during the day have all said it would be inappropriate to discuss any private conversations they had had with the Queen.
The BBC said it quickly realised its error and issued the apology. A spokesman said it was not the result of any complaint from Buckingham Palace.
The letter said: “This morning on the Today programme our correspondent Frank Gardner revealed details of a private conversation which took place some years ago with The Queen.
“The conversation should have remained private and the BBC and Frank deeply regret this breach of confidence. It was wholly inappropriate.
“Frank is extremely sorry for the embarrassment caused and has apologised to the Palace.”
Earlier Mr Gardner had said the Queen was so “upset” about the Islamist extremist being allowed to preach his message of hate in the UK that she asked a former Home Secretary to explain why he was still at large.
Hamza and four other terrorism suspects are facing extradition to America within days after they had their case against removal from Britain thrown out by the European Court of Human Rights yesterday.
“The Queen was pretty upset that there was no way to arrest him. She couldn’t understand – surely there must be some law that he broke,” the BBC correspondent told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“Well, sure enough there was. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to seven years for soliciting murder and racial hatred.”
Mr Gardner added: “She spoke to the Home Secretary at the time and said, ‘surely this man must have broken some laws, my goodness, why is he still at large?’
“Because he was conducting these radical activities, he called Britain a lavatory, he was incredibly anti-British, and yet he was sucking up money from this country for a long time. He was a huge embarrassment to Muslims, who condemned him.”
Asked how he knew about the Queen’s views on Hamza, Mr Gardner said simply: “She told me.”
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
Yesterday’s ruling by a panel of five judges at the European Court of Human Rights means there is now no other barrier to deporting Hamza and the others and they could be on a plane within a matter of days.
It brings to an end a series of long legal battles by the terror suspects which has cost the taxpayer more than £4 million in detention and legal bills.
One of the cases had has been running for more than 13 years and Hamza’s extradition fight has run since 2004.
The Home Office last night pledged to remove Hamza and the others “as quickly as possible”.
The ECHR first ruled in April this year that Hamza and the others could be deported to America because prisons there are more comfortable than those in Europe.
In the landmark judgment, the court concluded that extradition to the US would not lead to inhuman treatment.
It unanimously dismissed claims that conditions in American "supermax" jails were degrading, instead ruling that facilities such as televisions, telephones and arts and crafts actually "went beyond" what was provided in most European prisons.
The five suspects applied to have their cases appealed at the Grand Chamber but a panel yesterday rejected those applications.
Earlier this year the retired British businessman Christopher Tappin was extradited to the US within two weeks of losing his final appeal bid.
Hamza, who lost both hands and an eye fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, is charged in the US with 11 counts relating to the taking of 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998, advocating jihad in Afghanistan in 2001 and conspiring to establish a jihad training camp in Bly, Oregon in 2000–2001.
The American authorities first requested his extradition in 2004 but the process was almost immediately put on hold when Hamza was charged in the UK with 15 offences under the Terrorism Act, temporarily staying the US extradition process.
In 2006 he was found guilty on 11 charges, including inciting murder and race hate, and was jailed for seven years.
Also facing deportation are Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan, who are accused of offences including providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure.
Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled al – Fawwaz were originally indicted for their alleged involvement in, or support for, the bombing of US embassies in East Africa in 1998.
Al – Fawwaz faces more than 269 counts of murder.
Following deportation, the suspects will be held in supermax prisons, the most secure custody in the US, although it is likely that Hamza will be exempted because of his medical condition.
The men argued that conditions in jails, and their possible sentences of life without parole, breached Article 3 of the European Convention, which protects against ill treatment and torture.
The April ruling, after a series of controversial human rights judgments against the Government, was welcomed by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Speaking at the time, former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said the decision would "do a great deal to restore the reputation of the court", adding: "Perhaps now we can have a rational debate about the role and significance of the European Convention and its fundamental importance to a democratic society like our own."
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Home Secretary welcomes today's decision not to refer the cases of Abu Hamza and four others to the Grand Chamber.
“This follows the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 10 April to allow the extradition of these five terrorism suspects to the US.
“We will work to ensure that the individuals are handed over to the US authorities as quickly as possible.”
The BBC has apologised for revealing that the Queen had privately expressed concern over why Abu Hamza had not been arrested.
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has lost his fight over extradition to the United States
The corporation’s respected security correspondent Frank Gardner claimed in a conversation he had with the Queen several years ago, she had spoken of her frustration that Hamza was still at liberty and spreading messages of hatred,
He said she has also revealed she had raised the issue with the Home Secretary of the time.
It is not known when the conversation took place but the hate cleric was arrested on charges under the Terrorism Act in late 2004.
But within hours of Mr Gardner’s revelations, the BBC wrote to Buckingham Palace apologising for breaching the confidence of a private conversation.
It said the comments were “wholly inappropriate” and that Mr Gardner “deeply regretted” the breach and was “extremely sorry”.
Former Home Secretaries contacted over the issue during the day have all said it would be inappropriate to discuss any private conversations they had had with the Queen.
The BBC said it quickly realised its error and issued the apology. A spokesman said it was not the result of any complaint from Buckingham Palace.
The letter said: “This morning on the Today programme our correspondent Frank Gardner revealed details of a private conversation which took place some years ago with The Queen.
“The conversation should have remained private and the BBC and Frank deeply regret this breach of confidence. It was wholly inappropriate.
“Frank is extremely sorry for the embarrassment caused and has apologised to the Palace.”
Earlier Mr Gardner had said the Queen was so “upset” about the Islamist extremist being allowed to preach his message of hate in the UK that she asked a former Home Secretary to explain why he was still at large.
Hamza and four other terrorism suspects are facing extradition to America within days after they had their case against removal from Britain thrown out by the European Court of Human Rights yesterday.
“The Queen was pretty upset that there was no way to arrest him. She couldn’t understand – surely there must be some law that he broke,” the BBC correspondent told Radio 4’s Today programme.
“Well, sure enough there was. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to seven years for soliciting murder and racial hatred.”
Mr Gardner added: “She spoke to the Home Secretary at the time and said, ‘surely this man must have broken some laws, my goodness, why is he still at large?’
“Because he was conducting these radical activities, he called Britain a lavatory, he was incredibly anti-British, and yet he was sucking up money from this country for a long time. He was a huge embarrassment to Muslims, who condemned him.”
Asked how he knew about the Queen’s views on Hamza, Mr Gardner said simply: “She told me.”
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
Yesterday’s ruling by a panel of five judges at the European Court of Human Rights means there is now no other barrier to deporting Hamza and the others and they could be on a plane within a matter of days.
It brings to an end a series of long legal battles by the terror suspects which has cost the taxpayer more than £4 million in detention and legal bills.
One of the cases had has been running for more than 13 years and Hamza’s extradition fight has run since 2004.
The Home Office last night pledged to remove Hamza and the others “as quickly as possible”.
The ECHR first ruled in April this year that Hamza and the others could be deported to America because prisons there are more comfortable than those in Europe.
In the landmark judgment, the court concluded that extradition to the US would not lead to inhuman treatment.
It unanimously dismissed claims that conditions in American "supermax" jails were degrading, instead ruling that facilities such as televisions, telephones and arts and crafts actually "went beyond" what was provided in most European prisons.
The five suspects applied to have their cases appealed at the Grand Chamber but a panel yesterday rejected those applications.
Earlier this year the retired British businessman Christopher Tappin was extradited to the US within two weeks of losing his final appeal bid.
Hamza, who lost both hands and an eye fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, is charged in the US with 11 counts relating to the taking of 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998, advocating jihad in Afghanistan in 2001 and conspiring to establish a jihad training camp in Bly, Oregon in 2000–2001.
The American authorities first requested his extradition in 2004 but the process was almost immediately put on hold when Hamza was charged in the UK with 15 offences under the Terrorism Act, temporarily staying the US extradition process.
In 2006 he was found guilty on 11 charges, including inciting murder and race hate, and was jailed for seven years.
Also facing deportation are Babar Ahmad and Syed Talha Ahsan, who are accused of offences including providing support to terrorists and conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure.
Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled al – Fawwaz were originally indicted for their alleged involvement in, or support for, the bombing of US embassies in East Africa in 1998.
Al – Fawwaz faces more than 269 counts of murder.
Following deportation, the suspects will be held in supermax prisons, the most secure custody in the US, although it is likely that Hamza will be exempted because of his medical condition.
The men argued that conditions in jails, and their possible sentences of life without parole, breached Article 3 of the European Convention, which protects against ill treatment and torture.
The April ruling, after a series of controversial human rights judgments against the Government, was welcomed by Prime Minister David Cameron.
Speaking at the time, former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said the decision would "do a great deal to restore the reputation of the court", adding: "Perhaps now we can have a rational debate about the role and significance of the European Convention and its fundamental importance to a democratic society like our own."
A Home Office spokesman said: “The Home Secretary welcomes today's decision not to refer the cases of Abu Hamza and four others to the Grand Chamber.
“This follows the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on 10 April to allow the extradition of these five terrorism suspects to the US.
“We will work to ensure that the individuals are handed over to the US authorities as quickly as possible.”