British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[firemanbob]

Well at least we're entertaining the other posters.

 

It would appear so.

 

The link I provided contained the factual information which I quoted, proving that there was a difference between the two countries obligations under the agreement.

That's correct and I didn't dispute that.

 

 

You chose to ignore the fact and instead refer to a personal viewpoint of someone who was doing a desperate arse covering exercise on behalf of the idiots who screwed up signing off on a ridiculously one sided agreement.

 

No I didn't ignore it, I just formed a different opinion to you, which appear to be the same opinion that our courts and government have formed.

 

 

 

Now, perhaps you could enlighten us, and support your argument by providing us with information as to exactly what the Americans have to do under the terms of the agreement when they wish to extradite a British citizen?

 

We know they don't have to provide any proof of a crime being committed by the person they want.

 

Therefore ,we can assume they don't have to even mention which crime they want them for, why bother, no connection is needed.

 

They don't have to provide any information as to why that particular individual is the one they want.

 

So, what exactly are they required to do?

 

Other than supplying us with the name of the person, there seems little else for them to do, not exactly the support and protection we should expect from our government is it?

 

Re post your link and I will quote the relevant bits for you.

[Lotusflower]

[mjw47]

It would appear so.

 

 

That's correct and I didn't dispute that.

 

 

 

 

No I didn't ignore it, I just formed a different opinion to you, which appear to be the same opinion that our courts and government have formed.

 

 

 

 

 

Re post your link and I will quote the relevant bits for you.

 

But you did dispute it, you said that it looked 'equal' to you when the facts I quoted proved that it is nowhere near equal, as Britain had obligations placed upon it that America didn't.

 

A great man once said " Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own fact".

 

We have an example of that here.

 

I posted the facts stated in the article which proved that there was a difference, you have now conceded that point, but are now trying to make out that you always accepted it.

 

Your 'looks equal' comment proves that you didn't.

 

Whilst I went with the facts you chose to go with an opinion. Sir Scott Baker 'argued' that it was virtually the same.

 

An 'argument' in legal terms is simply the opinion given by whoever is summarizing the inquiry.

 

The fact is plain to see, there is an obvious difference in favour of the Americans. Scott Baker was waffling to try and save face for whoever ballsed it up.

 

The way it works is that whether the extradition is from Britain to America or America to Britain the application has to satisfy the American requirement of 'probable cause' which is decided in an American court in both instances.

 

In other words they have handed over the lives of British citizens to the judgement and decisions of the USA system of Justice.

 

Why would I need to re post the link? Page 10 post 187.

[firemanbob]

 

Why would I need to re post the link? Page 10 post 187.

 

 

We have to explain why we want their citizen and provide some evidence as to why we believe they are guilty of a crime.

 

They don't have to supply us with anything, they don't have to explain anything.

 

All they need to do is request us to hand over a British citizen and the only question we can ask is where and when do you want them delivered.

 

This would be the part that contradicts your claim.

 

Extradition from the UK to US

 

The process begins when a US prosecutor obtains an arrest warrant with the approval of the domestic courts.

 

In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service acts on behalf of the US in taking the case through the courts.

 

Once the police have arrested the suspect, the courts must decide whether or not the US has met the tests required for an extradition to take place. This is a fairly technical hearing in which the lawfulness of the request is examined.

 

The US does not need to provide all the evidence in a case, as if the allegations were being tested in a full trial by British judges.

 

What this comes down to is proving to the courts that there is reasonable suspicion - essentially the hurdle police need to jump to justify an arrest - but obviously short of what is necessary to get a conviction.

 

A Home Office-commissioned independent review, which concluded in October, found the US had not refused any extradition requests since the treaty came into force. A total of seven US requests were refused by the UK in that time.

 

The Home Office's extradition review, led by former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker, argued there was no real difference between the US tests of "probable cause" and the introduction of "reasonable suspicion".

 

The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.

Edited October 8, 2014 by firemanbob

[mjw47]

This would be the part that contradicts your claim.

 

And this would be the part that counters your contention.

 

"Critics say that that is a red herring, campaign group Friends Extradited says the real issue of imbalance is that whilst the US courts don't allow an extradition until a judge has examined the quality of the evidence, because of the constitutional rights of the suspect, a British judge is merely examining the quality of the application - not the case the individual faces on arrival in the US."

 

So in other words, the Americans have control of the process, they make sure that the constitutional rights of their citizens are not being infringed by our request, but will have no such qualms when it comes to extraditing a British citizen.

 

The British involvement is merely to check the paperwork.

 

A British judge does not even have the opportunity to examine what charges are going to be made, and what evidence is going to be used against the British citizen when they face trial in a foreign country.

 

Yes, I think Britain needs a Bill of Rights, be nice to have some constitutional rights and not simply be treat like a chess piece.

[firemanbob]

And this would be the part that counters your contention.

 

"Critics say that that is a red herring, campaign group Friends Extradited says the real issue of imbalance is that whilst the US courts don't allow an extradition until a judge has examined the quality of the evidence, because of the constitutional rights of the suspect, a British judge is merely examining the quality of the application - not the case the individual faces on arrival in the US."

 

So in other words, the Americans have control of the process, they make sure that the constitutional rights of their citizens are not being infringed by our request, but will have no such qualms when it comes to extraditing a British citizen.

 

The British involvement is merely to check the paperwork.

 

A British judge does not even have the opportunity to examine what charges are going to be made, and what evidence is going to be used against the British citizen when they face trial in a foreign country.

 

Yes, I think Britain needs a Bill of Rights, be nice to have some constitutional rights and not simply be treat like a chess piece.

 

Who are these critic that say this? because the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker disagree with them, as does the Home Office's extradition review panel.

[mjw47]

Who are these critic that say this? because the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker disagree with them, as does the Home Office's extradition review panel.

 

Are you seriously that gullible?

 

Do you actually believe all the crap that the authorities ask you to?

 

Did you believe that dick Blair when he said that there were WMD in Iraq and that they were a 45 minute away threat to us?

 

Final question, are you incapable of using your own reasoning capabilities and commonsense to evaluate evidence?

 

It is blindingly obvious to anyone with the IQ of a ten year old that the Extradition treaty between the USA and the UK is being operated to the advantage of the US.

 

You have already conceded that there is a difference between the procedure as it applies to both countries.

 

If there is a difference there will be an advantage to one against the other.

 

The advantage is to the Americans, their judges, their constitution, their rules.

 

The link was to a BBC news site, don't you think that they will have checked

into the veracity of the 'critics'? Don't you think that they would look into the claim and agree that it had substance before including it in their report?

[firemanbob]

Are you seriously that gullible?

 

Do you actually believe all the crap that the authorities ask you to?

 

Did you believe that dick Blair when he said that there were WMD in Iraq and that they were a 45 minute away threat to us?

 

Final question, are you incapable of using your own reasoning capabilities and commonsense to evaluate evidence?

 

It is blindingly obvious to anyone with the IQ of a ten year old that the Extradition treaty between the USA and the UK is being operated to the advantage of the US.

 

You have already conceded that there is a difference between the procedure as it applies to both countries.

 

If there is a difference there will be an advantage to one against the other.

 

The advantage is to the Americans, their judges, their constitution, their rules.

 

The link was to a BBC news site, don't you think that they will have checked

into the veracity of the 'critics'? Don't you think that they would look into the claim and agree that it had substance before including it in their report?

 

And yet it is the British that have refused US extradition requests whilst they haven't refused any of our requests.

[mjw47]

And yet it is the British that have refused US extradition requests whilst they haven't refused any of our requests.

 

Yes, it would appear that in those cases the paperwork was not up to the standard required by the British judges, the only reason that they can use to refuse extradition to the USA.

 

The British have made 54 requests to the USA between 2004 and 2011 whilst the US made 130 requests in the same period, so in other words we have sent 120 British citizens to the US whilst they have sent 54 US citizens to us.

 

Don't you find that a bit strange?

 

After all, there are 319,000,000 people in the USA, and only 64,100,000 in the UK, surely there should be more criminals in the US rather than the UK?

[firemanbob]

Yes, it would appear that in those cases the paperwork was not up to the standard required by the British judges, the only reason that they can use to refuse extradition to the USA.

 

The British have made 54 requests to the USA between 2004 and 2011 whilst the US made 130 requests in the same period, so in other words we have sent 120 British citizens to the US whilst they have sent 54 US citizens to us.

 

Don't you find that a bit strange?

 

After all, there are 319,000,000 people in the USA, and only 64,100,000 in the UK, surely there should be more criminals in the US rather than the UK?

 

I would need to see the specifics of each case before making a call on how strange it it.

 

All it tells me is that more British people commit crime in or against the US than the crime Americans commit in or against the UK, and I don't find that very strange.