British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[firemanbob]

That is what they quite clearly totally fail to do.

 

What do you mean by 'people like me?'

 

If you mean people that think the police aren't capable of doing their jobs when provided with ongoing evidence from several sources, including two respectable outsiders, but are very capable of messing innocents about, then fair enough.

 

These people were businessmen involved in finances.

 

They were in possession of information which allowed them to make some money.

 

A minor transgression under British Law, jail time under US law because of their reaction to Enron etc.

 

SO?

 

So conducted business in the US that was against US law and you think the US had no right to pursue them?

 

I assume you are talking about these financial fraudsters.

 

The NatWest Three, also known as the Enron Three,[1] are three British businessmen - Giles Darby, David Bermingham and Gary Mulgrew.[2] In 2002 they were indicted in Houston, Texas on seven counts of wire fraud against their former employer Greenwich NatWest, at the time a division of National Westminster Bank.[3] After a high-profile battle in the British courts they were extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States in 2006. On 28 November 2007, they each pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in exchange for the other charges being dropped.[4] On 22 February 2008 they were each sentenced to 37 months in prison. Initially they were jailed in the US, but were later moved to UK prisons. They were released in August 2010.

Edited October 7, 2014 by firemanbob

[Cyclone]

It should have no right to extradite UK citizens since we don't have the same rights with regards to US citizens.

[firemanbob]

It should have no right to extradite UK citizens since we don't have the same rights with regards to US citizens.

 

You would rather criminals walk free in the UK than be extradited to face justice in the US?

 

Just found this.

 

Between January 2004 and 30 March 2012, there have been seven known US citizens extradited from the US to the UK.

 

Britain has not made a single request for a US citizen be sent to this country for a crime committed over there.

 

A US embassy spokeswoman said: “The US has never refused an extradition request from the UK for any type of crime under this treaty.

 

“The UK has refused 7 requests from the US. The facts clearly show that the treaty is fair and in no way lopsided.”

Edited October 7, 2014 by firemanbob

[Zamo]

Again, it is nothing to do with what you voted for, nobody voted for the ECHR, it was agreed upon, in good faith, by ALL members of the Council of Europe, an organisation entirely independent from the EU and indeed any politics.

 

So we are in agreement... we've never had a vote on whether to subjugate powers to the ECHR.

 

And whilst the EU may technically be separate to the ECHR, all the court's rulings affect EU member states and therefore become part of European case law, influencing EU legislation, which is decided by EU politicians. It is all interlinked and clearly political.

[ronthenekred]

You would rather criminals walk free in the UK than be extradited to face justice in the US?

 

Just found this.

 

Between January 2004 and 30 March 2012, there have been seven known US citizens extradited from the US to the UK.

 

Britain has not made a single request for a US citizen be sent to this country for a crime committed over there.

 

A US embassy spokeswoman said: “The US has never refused an extradition request from the UK for any type of crime under this treaty.

 

“The UK has refused 7 requests from the US. The facts clearly show that the treaty is fair and in no way lopsided.”

 

Can you provide the link to that please?

[mjw47]

So conducted business in the US that was against US law and you think the US had no right to pursue them?

 

I assume you are talking about these financial fraudsters.

 

The NatWest Three, also known as the Enron Three,[1] are three British businessmen - Giles Darby, David Bermingham and Gary Mulgrew.[2] In 2002 they were indicted in Houston, Texas on seven counts of wire fraud against their former employer Greenwich NatWest, at the time a division of National Westminster Bank.[3] After a high-profile battle in the British courts they were extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States in 2006. On 28 November 2007, they each pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in exchange for the other charges being dropped.[4] On 22 February 2008 they were each sentenced to 37 months in prison. Initially they were jailed in the US, but were later moved to UK prisons. They were released in August 2010.

 

The point is very simple. They were not in the US when they carried out these actions, they were in Britain.

 

The actions would not have resulted in a jail sentence under British law, they would have been fined.

 

After the financial collapse America introduced draconian laws and penalties to try to prevent a repeat.

 

We didn't, you may say the Americans were correct to do so and I might agree with you, but that's not the point is it?

 

Britain turned over it's citizens to be dealt with under the laws of another country.

 

As a result of Congresses ruling you can be certain that any US citizens turned over to Britain have only been done so following Britain providing evidential proof of wrongdoing sufficient to satisfy US judges.

 

That is fair enough and common practice between all friendly countries.

 

The fact still remains that America can extradite a British citizen on suspicion only and Britain cannot do the same to a US citizen.

[L00b]

And whilst the EU may technically be separate to the ECHR, all the court's rulings affect EU member states and therefore become part of European case law, influencing EU legislation, which is decided by EU politicians. It is all interlinked and clearly political.

The same comment is valid as regards any other non-EU agreements, e.g. the European Patent Convention and, still more supranationally, WTO agreements such as TRIPS (simple examples, there are dozens and dozens more).

 

Like it or loathe it, the UK does not live in a planetary vacuum and international relations, be they European (within the 'EU' sense of the word) or well beyond, require codification in one form or another, under which disputes will arise and be arbitrated (whether by the ECHR, or one of the very many international tribunals/courts based in The Hague), so all members keep playing from substantially the same hymn sheet.

 

The alternative, obviously enough, is quasi-anarchy.

[firemanbob]

The point is very simple. They were not in the US when they carried out these actions, they were in Britain.

 

 

So you don't think the people responsible for killing a British citizen in Iraq should ever have to face justice in the UK?

[mjw47]

So you don't think the people responsible for killing a British citizen in Iraq should ever have to face justice in the UK?

 

Are you serious?

 

That example is so far removed from the subject we were talking about as to be ludicrous.

 

Let me repeat myself as you don't seem to understand a very simple point.

 

The crime that they were accused of would not have resulted in a jail sentence under British Law.

 

Do you understand that now?

[JFKvsNixon]

So you don't think the people responsible for killing a British citizen in Iraq should ever have to face justice in the UK?

 

Do you think it would be right for some one to be extradited and imprisoned in a strict Islamic country for saying something blasphemous here in this country?