»   Karl Rove criticises Rick Perry; says attack on Ben Bernanke "not a Presidential statement". Bunfight! http://t.co/izeXNzH 7 hrs ago

»   That last screenshot was from this article's best rated comments (I still don't know what to think about it) http://t.co/MTcpHtS 7 hrs ago

»   Daily Mail commenters are a really odd bunch - veering from one emotion to another. Check this http://t.co/MH0JwFC 8 hrs ago

»   Remember this? Seems Tesco's "chunky muesli for men" isn't doing so well. Maybe because it sounds stupid? http://t.co/jD19xZR 10 hrs ago

»   Many point out such details are released anyway when ppl charged. Sure but in this environment that invites retaliation: *that* is the issue 11 hrs ago

» More updates...


  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Qatada Deported


    by Sid (Faisal)
    18th February, 2009 at 3:14 pm    

    Pass the rasmalai. Crack open the champagne.

    The Law Lords have ruled that Abu Qatada will be deported from the UK to Jordan where he faces jail for terrorism.

    Inayat Bunglawala does not seem too happy.

    Do you have any evidence that [Qatada] has [been involved in terrorism]? If so, I suggest you do us all a favour and get in touch with the police.

    If Abu Qatada has been involved in terrorism - and we have evidence of that - then charges should be brought against him and he should be and tried [sic] properly in our courts. I mean isn’t that meant to be how we are supposed to do things in the UK. Oh wait, Qatada is a Muslim and has a scary beard..silly me.

    I am in favour of laws and actions which target de-facto Islamists rather than laws which attempt to criminalise Muslims en-masse. Or opinions, like Bunglawala’s, which are made specifically to obfuscate the difference between ordinary Muslims and Islamists, by suggesting that violent extremists like Abu Qatada are deported simply because they are Muslims with “scary beards”.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Terrorism






    51 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. platinum786 — on 18th February, 2009 at 3:43 pm  

      1. He does have a scary beard.

      2. Woohoo.

      I’ve had enough of retards like him making us look bad, we can do that fine all by ourselves.

    2. munir — on 18th February, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

      sid

      ” which are made specifically to obfuscate the difference between ordinary Muslims and Islamists,”

      Ordnary Muslims like you you mean, who celebrate by calling for bottles of champagne to be opened. If
      thats ordinary then Id gladly be an “Islamist”

      “I am in favour of laws and actions which target de-facto Islamists ”

      In other words you supprot people being criminalized for their opinions

      ” by suggesting that violent criminals like Abu Qatada are deported simply because they are Muslims with “scary beards”.

      The problem is how long before people get deported or arrested for having “scary beards”. People have already een arrested under the anti-terrorism act for things that would have been unimaginable years ago. Given what you propose in the above comment Id say not long if you got your way.

    3. Ed — on 18th February, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

      here you are saying
      “I am in favour of laws and actions which target de-facto Islamists rather than laws which attempt to criminalise Muslims en-mass”

      while actually linking back to sunnys article which basically identifies what a “de-facto Islamist” is according to the government and their parrot like quilliam foundation…..

      So what is a “de-facto Islamist” in your opinion?
      If you mean “violent criminals” then surely you should use that term alone rather than “de-facto Islamist”?? No one claims that all islamists are violent, so there seems to be some blurring of the lines here

      Confusing…..

    4. Sid — on 18th February, 2009 at 5:23 pm  

      while actually linking back to sunnys article which basically identifies what a “de-facto Islamist” is according to the government and their parrot like quilliam foundation…..

      You were right first time, I linked back to *sunny’s article* which is a critique of Contest 2. I didn’t link back to a ‘Contest 2′ itself.

    5. soru — on 18th February, 2009 at 5:35 pm  

      The confusion and wrongness is almost too twisted to bother trying to sort out.

      Issue 1: which type of states should the government refuse to cooperate with when they request deportation of an alleged murderer to stand trial?

      Issue 2: what type of organisation should the government refuse to cooperate with when they request funding to run a youth club?

      You get exactly the same people arguing opposite positions: by them, the same traditional conservative muslim could be allowed to run a east end nursery school but not a middle eastern judicial system.

    6. thabet — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:00 pm  

      I am in favour of laws and actions which target de-facto Islamists rather than laws which attempt to criminalise Muslims en-mass.

      What laws do you think target *only* de-facto Islamists?

      And what is a de-facto Islamist?

    7. dave bones — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:39 pm  

      How long is the waiting list at the European cour of human rights? I don’t think Qatada is off to Jordan anytime soon.

    8. dave bones — on 18th February, 2009 at 6:39 pm  

      How long is the waiting list at the European court of human rights? I don’t think Qatada is off to Jordan anytime soon.

    9. Roger — on 18th February, 2009 at 7:03 pm  

      The evidence against Abu Qatada in Jordan was obtained by torture, which raises questions as to its reliability. Even- or especially, perhaps- someone as repellent as him is entitled to a fair trial with properly and legally obtained evidence.

      The attitude of the British government, dipolomatic service and security services to torture is digusting. While they won’t use torture themselves they are delighted to arrange for people to do it on their behalf. A government contract for thumbscrews and racks and a system of formal applications to use them would be less morally disgusting than the present habit of leaving it to wogs and others without our finer moral seneibilities and arranging for people to fall into their hands when necessary with British consuls or S.I.S. representatives on hand at a distance to say what questions to ask.

    10. chairwoman — on 18th February, 2009 at 7:48 pm  

      “Or opinions, like Bunglawala’s, which are made specifically to obfuscate the difference between ordinary Muslims and Islamists, by suggesting that violent criminals like Abu Qatada are deported simply because they are Muslims with “scary beards”.”

      Hasn’t he heard of ‘Beards of Terror’?

    11. Clean Shaven Don — on 18th February, 2009 at 8:57 pm  

      I’ve never understood beards. What is the point of ‘Look how hairy I can make my face’?

      How many PP regulars have beards? We all know about Sunny, but if beards are going to be a security issue then I want to know who I am associating with.

    12. comrade — on 18th February, 2009 at 9:45 pm  

      Hasn’t he heard of ‘Beards of Terror’?

      THE HELLS ANGLES OR WORSE THE SIKHS.

    13. Don — on 18th February, 2009 at 10:02 pm  

      Not Angles, but angels.

      Pope Gregory.

    14. Trofim — on 18th February, 2009 at 11:26 pm  

      I’ve got a bushy beard, and I’m an no Islamist. I just don’t comprehend why people should waste their time scraping hair off their face every day. Doesn’t make sense.

    15. Andy Gilmour — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:00 am  

      I am another (entirely secular and atheistic) beard-bearer, the length of which is extremely variable depending upon time, energy, and whether I remembered to charge-up me trimmer…

      Trofim - r.e. the shaving madness - couldn’t agree more. And it can give you a nasty rash :-)

    16. BenSix — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:40 am  

      “Weird, i thought the kike dickheads from Harry’s Place would be all over this.”

      *Reads*

      *Leaves computer, boils mug of coffee, sits back down, takes a gulp and then reads again*

      *Spits mouthful out onto screen.*

      Sadly, No.

    17. Refresh — on 19th February, 2009 at 1:32 am  

      Sid, what would be wrong with a trial?

    18. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 2:45 am  

      This seems to be an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.

      I had a beard a few days ago, because I was lazy.

      Now I don’t.

      So, poor Don will have to consider me a security risk last week and not one now. Or, whatever :-)

      The government could develop a computer program to track facial hair length as an indication of fecklessness, or knowing them, as something worse instead. Anyway, I think I’m more or less the same person whether I have one or not. Others see it differently.

      ——————————————

      It is apparently the case that in Holland, if memory serves, there are more children born in houses with storks nesting on the roofs than elsewhere. It is that basic failure to apply causality to statistics that lets us all down. I mean, really, it’s obvious innit, babies are brought by storks. And the statistics support it!

      And so with beards…

    19. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 2:55 am  

      Dammit Don, I know you said that somewhere, it’s just not on this thread.

      Bugger.

    20. marvin — on 19th February, 2009 at 9:42 am  

      White liberal Victoria Brittain on Comment is Free declares the decision is down to racism. Sid, you is racialist.

    21. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 9:48 am  

      marvin

      “White liberal Victoria Brittain on Comment is Free declares the decision is down to racism. Sid, you is racialist.”

      Why? Do you believe Sid made the decision to deport Qatada?

      God you HPers are thick.

    22. Sunny — on 19th February, 2009 at 9:51 am  

      I’m glad to see the back of Qatada but Inayat has one point which is somewhat important. What is the evidence against this guy? What has he been arrested and deported for?

    23. platinum786 — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:24 am  

      ^^^ That is true. Unfortunately for him, he was so unpleasant, most people honestly don’t care why he has been deported and are glad to see the back of him, me included (in my weaker moments).

      I would ASSUME that the home office have had access to evidence, hence they are deporting him. Then again, you can never be sure. No doubt a legal battle with start.

    24. Sid — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:37 am  

      The man has issued fatwas calling for war against non-Muslims and the kuffar even whilst he has been living in this country since 2003. His videos incite hate and urge believers to kill in the name of Allah-wa-ta’ala. These videos were found in the possession of terror cells in Hamburg, Frankfurt and Madrid - all involved with terror incidents.

      He poses more of a threat to Britain’s citizens than Yusuf al-Qaradawi yet he arrived here as an asylum seeker so he remains, while Qaradawi is banned.

      The law and justice are not the same thing, but in this case, they are not that divergent. But Britain will continue to protect him while he continues to issue fatwas against British citizens.

      But Inayat and other supporters of Qatada needn’t worry, your man probably has an illustrious career of hate incitement, recruiting young extremists to the “cause” and as a UK-based demagogue of “good Muslim values” ahead of him; because the authorities will never have the backbone to get rid of this “respected” Muslim scholar.

      His only crime, after all, is that he has a “scary beard”.

    25. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:37 am  

      well most british muslims are just that - scary beards or not - british - so there’s no need to worry about being ‘deported’ - that ain’t going to happen unless you’re a foreign national.

      As states go, yes its not the UK’s duty to try and keep him out of a Jordanian jail because of torture, they are going to more concerned about citizens and are within rights to deport. However, I don’t think its very sensible really to lump him off to Jordan, its prob. safer for all in the longer run to keep him here.

      Perhaps the issue is radical clerics shouldn’t be allowed to get here in the first place so easily - all this fuss about immigration, and why can’t they check out the clerics before they turn up.

      if you get deported, you can criticise nationalism, which is all about keeping nation-states for citizens and propping up deportations etc., why bother blaming “racism”. call it nationalism and be done with.

    26. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:42 am  

      I think in situations like this, stick them on tv in the big brother house or something - should be more than ‘adequate’ punishment.

      ho

    27. Sid — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:49 am  

      Yeah, then if he contracts cancer, he can marry a fourth wife and sell the story to the News of the World for a cool 1.5 million.

    28. soru — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:54 am  

      ‘What has he been arrested and deported for?’

      In Jordan, he has been tried and convicted on about 40 counts of murder, relating to 2 sets of bombings in Amman, with another trial pending for a third.

      It’s pretty bizarre how much UK coverage seem to ignore that fact, instead focusing on vague talk of him being locked up for some unspecified ‘threat’ he poses as an ‘extremist’, as if killing brown foreigners was not even worth mentioning.

    29. chairwoman — on 19th February, 2009 at 10:55 am  

      “Weird, i thought the kike dickheads from Harry’s Place would be all over this.”

      Weird, I thought racist abuse like this was going to be deleted.

    30. The Common Humanist — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:03 am  

      SE:

      ‘Weird, i thought the kike dickheads from Harry’s Place would be all over this’

      And so begins another day of anti-semitism. Sigh.

    31. Pete W — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:04 am  

      You goons are more than happy to have that ‘kike dickheads’ comment up there then?

      Your decision puts this site in a much clearer perspective - you really are just another manifestation of the dark, rotting underbelly of left-wing/anti-Jewish ‘thought’.

    32. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:04 am  

      yeah what is this so-called HP/PP war - its ridiculous and ive had enough of hearing references to it all the time. as if people who frequent either site are so easily classified, puh-leese

    33. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:09 am  

      27. yeah sid :-)

      we do need our ‘eyes’ on him - just think how that would freak all Mullahs/wannabe- Mullahs out -we get to find out what they are all actually up to, in between their preaching sessions. Sex? with who? how many?

      this would all be fascinating viewing for the British public(and everyone else, particularly those of us from muslim countries who know what our Mullahs are like)

      I’ve always wanted to go and ‘spy’ on the Mullahs to see what extracurricular activities they do - great for pulling out of the hat the next time they start going on about xyz. Oh you think what about ‘western’ morality - what’s that you say? Oh hang on, ill just wait till you finish ‘having’ that maidservant of yours. Oh she’s your slave is she? No? oh yes its not allowed anymore. what’s that in your right hand?

      ;-)

    34. Sid — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:12 am  

      *sigh*, I have deleted the offending comment.

      I have to say that I’m trying to hold down a job *and* write for this blog. So I reject Pete W’s cretinous rant that I am somehow responsible for every racist comment left by trolls on this blog.

    35. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 11:16 am  

      well done sid, its a hard job trying to do 2 jobs..(and look after the kids as well:-)) so credit to Sid everyone..

    36. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:03 pm  

      Sid,

      I’d have preferred it if he’d been put on trial at The Hague, rather than have been returned to Jordan.

      At least that way the evidence against him would have been in the public domain.

      Just saying.

    37. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:07 pm  

      soru

      “In Jordan, he has been tried and convicted on about 40 counts of murder, relating to 2 sets of bombings in Amman, with another trial pending for a third.

      It’s pretty bizarre how much UK coverage seem to ignore that fact”

      bizarre still is your faith in the Jordanian legal system

    38. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:22 pm  

      sid I seriously wonder about you
      Your clulessness about Islam I mean

      “The man has issued fatwas calling for war against non-Muslims and the kuffar”

      Against non-Muslims AND the Kuffar. Imagine that

      “His videos incite hate and urge believers to kill in the name of Allah-wa-ta’ala.”

      Bizarre. You are a Muslim but are not even able to say God’s name properly. Allah-wa-ta’ala? . The disrespectful offhand way you use it is also highly instructive

      ” But Britain will continue to protect him while he continues to issue fatwas against British citizens.”

      Do you even know what a fatwa is? You use it as the ignorant do as a synonym for “death sentence”
      In any case how do you know this? Didnt Qatada directly address the kidnappers and call for Ken Bigleys release?

      Once again you let your personal feelings override basic common sense and logical thinking

      “But Inayat and other supporters of Qatada needn’t worry, your man probably has an illustrious career of hate incitement,”

      Lame smear tactics worthy of HP. So because a person questions a decision he becomes a “supporter” ?

      You cant base legal cases and judgements on “probably”

    39. soru — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:22 pm  

      @dc: that would be a good idea in principle, if appropriate international laws and courts existed.

      I don’t think anything has changed since this was written:

      Among the many problems terrorism poses is a familiar crux of international law: the failure of attempts by the community of nations to find an acceptable legal definition of terrorism. The principle reason for this aporia is that the international community finds it difficult to distinguish between terrorism, national liberation movements and other movement that has or continue to use force to defend their right of self-determination. For this reason, the international law concerning terrorism has developed haphazardly and now consists of an unsystematic hodge-podge of treaties concerning specific modes of terrorism. Individual states have chosen which among these treaties they will ratify and incorporate into their domestic legal systems. Accordingly, prosecutions of acts of terrorism falling within the various treaties tend only to occur in domestic legal fora.

    40. Sid — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:30 pm  

      Against non-Muslims AND the Kuffar. Imagine that

      And what’s the point of that statement? Are you implying that using the word “kuffar” after “non-Muslims” is a redundancy? I wouldn’t expect anything more from a putrid race-baiter like you.

      Lame smear tactics worthy of HP. So because a person questions a decision he becomes a “supporter” ?

      Stop being a coward and hiding behind wordplay. You’re not even much good at it.

    41. The Common Humanist — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:31 pm  

      Another clerical fascist soon to be gone from these shores. Excellant.

    42. ukliberty — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

      Inayat Bunglawala might be interested in learning that Qatada hasn’t challenged his deportation on the grounds that he isn’t a threat to national security.

      See for example Abu Qatada v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] UKSIAC 15/2005 (26 February 2007):

      We accept the summary and detail of the SSHD’s case against the Appellant, including the reports and assessments which we have set out above. In the light of the Appellant’s stance, that is scarcely surprising. He had plenty of opportunity to refute that evidence and has declined to try to do so. It was open to him to put forward his evidence in response to the case against him both on the Part 4 ATCSA appeal and here. Had he done so, his evidence would have been considered fairly. He has chosen not to do so on each occasion.

    43. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

      soru,

      If I recall correctly the Lockerbie bomb plot was tried in The Hague. I seem to remember some deal being done about UK sovereignty over the courtroom right enough.

      However, the principle that the ICC should try - when all else fails - egregious crimes against humanity seems to be largely accepted, does it not?

      Whether it would be right to extend it’s remit to include cases like this is the point I was attempting to debate.

    44. MaidMarian — on 19th February, 2009 at 1:10 pm  

      Sunny (21) - As I understand it (happy to be correted) AQ is a Jordanian citizen and not a UK citizen. He is subject to an arrest request from Jordan.

      There is however an interesting question as to why the UK authorities have not come down on this unsavoury character hard an put him on trial here.

      douglas clark (42) - The Lockerbie case was held in the Hague inder Scottish jurisdiction with a Scottish judge under the Scottish legal system.

      The ICC is really about war crimes and it really has not been accepted globally and is seen (wrongly to my mind) as dispensing victors’ justice. An internationalisation of terror trials is a seriously interesting idea though.

    45. douglas clark — on 19th February, 2009 at 1:40 pm  

      MaidMarian,

      I really wish I’d never mentioned the Lockerbie trial. It is a red herring.

      On the ICC, there are 108 countries that have ratified the treaty, including the whole of the EU. The main hold out is the US who are a bunch of arrogant bastards when it comes to questions like this. Interestingly, the only Middle East state that has fully ratified the treaty is Jordan! Israel has not.

      I can fully understand that extending the remit of a body such as the ICC at this time is possibly a step too far. Perhaps it has to prove itself first within the framework it already has.

      Still, there is a need for a non state actor to arbitrate on cases where a state like the UK is being asked to extradite someone to a regime where there is no guarantee of justice. (And I’m not saying that Jordan is such a state!) With all the attendant bad publicity. You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t.

      Just in case you think I am being unreasonable about the USA, you would do well to google Gary McKinnon.

    46. sonia — on 19th February, 2009 at 2:58 pm  

      hey? im confused now..is this latest ruling in response to demands from the Jordanian state? Or not..?

    47. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

      MaidMarian
      “The ICC is really about war crimes and it really has not been accepted globally and is seen (wrongly to my mind) as dispensing victors’ justice.”

      So its not about victors’ justice? When were Bush and Blair dragged up in front of it ? How can the ICC be accepted globally or NOT be seen as victos’ justice when US soliders are exmpt from it?

      ” An internationalisation of terror trials is a seriously interesting idea though.”

      State terrorists too right? Olmert? Barak? Zvini?
      And actually giving suspected terrorists a trial rather than just murdering them would be a novelty

    48. soru — on 19th February, 2009 at 3:26 pm  

      There is however an interesting question as to why the UK authorities have not come down on this unsavoury character hard an put him on trial here.

      Because the only thing his is guilty of here is ‘saying nasty things while in possession of a beard’.

      Now maybe you could stretch the law so that counted as illegal, under say the race relations act, or the facial hair(neckbeards) act of 1792.

      But there is no way the punishment, even if it did involve the big brother house, could be appropriate for a convicted mass murderer. A fine would probably be paid by his supporters, even a short jail sentence would just further convince him and his supporters that the UK was evil, without solving anything.

      You have to remember, there is a divergence in interests in these cases between possible suspects and their lawyers - it’s usually the lawyers who get to write a ‘news story’ in the Guardian.

      The lawyers don’t have any special self-interest in whether their clients go free or get an appropriate sentence. They just want there to be a trial and appeals under English and EU law, as opposed to a tribunal, commission or decision. That way they can use their expertise, feel important.

      The worst case for potential defendants would be for some mundane law that many people break without penalty (passport fraud, race relations, not filing VAT returns on time) to suddenly, due to a nod from MI5 to the judge, start attracting 10 year sentences on a first offence.

      Some legally-oriented civil libertarians would not see the problem with that - there was a trial following proper rules of evidence, guilt was judged on that evidence, everyone got paid, then a judge made a sentencing decision he was entitled to make.

      But it would obviously be disastrous from the points of view of both justice and anti-terrorism.

    49. munir — on 19th February, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

      sid

      “And what’s the point of that statement? Are you implying that using the word “kuffar” after “non-Muslims” is a redundancy?”

      The point is your credibility - your staggering ignorance of islamic terminology whilst posing as a soi-disant expert on these matters and trading on your Muslim background.

      ” I wouldn’t expect anything more from a putrid race-baiter like you.”

      ?
      In the context of what you just wrote that makes no sense whatsoever since kuffar might be seen as offensive to non Muslims whilst non-Muslim wouldnt.

      I noticed you didnt even bother trying to defend “Allah-wa-ta’ala.”

      “Stop being a coward and hiding behind wordplay. You’re not even much good at it.”

      LOL

    50. Sunny — on 19th February, 2009 at 4:42 pm  

      SE is a known troll, and comes here only to post racist comments so we look bad. And predictably, some people come up and try and make us look bad. I’m not even in the country, so i cant moderate much.

    51. Sid — on 19th February, 2009 at 5:52 pm  

      munir/blah

      The fact that you don’t know why there are different applications of the terms “kufar” and non-Muslim and why they may mean different things rather than just one big slur to use on your enemies, exposes your ignorance better than I ever could.

      It would be disastrous to your credibility for you for not knowing “Allah wa ta’ala” is a common formula for God around the Muslim world, wouldn’t it?
      Oh look.

      Your arguments are so basic, so piss poor and so pedestrian and shoddy, I don’t why I even bother correcting you. So why don’t you do yourself a favour and run off to some Islamist blog where you and your sort can reinforce each others’ prejudices rather than waste eveyone’s time here.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.