British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[tzijlstra]

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.

 

Funny how that rule applies when it comes to US rulings but not when it comes to ECHR rulings.

[mjw47]

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

 

Well, as good fortune would have it, you are able to do that.

 

Open my link on page 10 post 187 and click on the words Friends Extradited, you can't go wrong, they're highlighted in blue.

 

You will then be able to find out why there's a problem and how the legislation came to be rushed through by simply expanding the page by clicking on Read More.

 

Better still, if you click on cases on the banner at the top you will be able to learn the background to each case.

 

A particularly interesting one is the case of David Mcintyre a man who spent his career mainly serving in the British army and who whilst serving at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan was dismissed from the army and returned to the UK following a request from the Americans.

 

The case against him is based on an arrested man making accusations against him in an effort to 'cut a deal' and get his own sentence reduced.

 

Mcintyre is currently in 23 hour a day lock down in a Washington jail.

 

A fine way to treat a man who served his country and a complete reversal of the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.

 

Once you have taken the trouble to read that, I'm sure we would be interested in hearing your further comments on the situation.

[firemanbob]

Well, as good fortune would have it, you are able to do that.

 

Open my link on page 10 post 187 and click on the words Friends Extradited, you can't go wrong, they're highlighted in blue.

 

You will then be able to find out why there's a problem and how the legislation came to be rushed through by simply expanding the page by clicking on Read More.

 

Better still, if you click on cases on the banner at the top you will be able to learn the background to each case.

 

A particularly interesting one is the case of David Mcintyre a man who spent his career mainly serving in the British army and who whilst serving at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan was dismissed from the army and returned to the UK following a request from the Americans.

 

The case against him is based on an arrested man making accusations against him in an effort to 'cut a deal' and get his own sentence reduced.

 

Mcintyre is currently in 23 hour a day lock down in a Washington jail.

 

A fine way to treat a man who served his country and a complete reversal of the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.

 

Once you have taken the trouble to read that, I'm sure we would be interested in hearing your further comments on the situation.

 

They are a little short on details and I couldn't find the information about Americans that have been extradited to the UK.

 

I did come across this which would indicate that the US do have to supply some evidence before we extradite someone. Its over ten years and he still hasn't been extradited so the system appears to be working.

 

In CPS disclosure to the court in 2009 the CPS admitted that the U.S had not provided any evidence whatsoever of the alleged damage required to make Gary's offence an Extraditable offence.

[mjw47]

They are a little short on details and I couldn't find the information about Americans that have been extradited to the UK.

 

I did come across this which would indicate that the US do have to supply some evidence before we extradite someone. Its over ten years and he still hasn't been extradited so the system appears to be working.

 

In CPS disclosure to the court in 2009 the CPS admitted that the U.S had not provided any evidence whatsoever of the alleged damage required to make Gary's offence an Extraditable offence.

 

According to the BBC report whilst the US court gets to examine the quality of the evidence, the British court is only allowed to examine the quality of the application.

 

Therefore, there has to be something wrong with the application if we have managed to refuse extradition.

 

When this arrangement was first suggested I seem to recall that all the emphasis was on the urgent need for it because of 'national security' and 'terrorism'.

 

With regard to the case of David Mcintyre there is no suggestion of any terrorism aspect, he is accused - by a convicted felon - of being involved in the the fraudulent theft of $100,000 from an American company.

 

Whilst if true it is reprehensible, we have MPs who've made more than that out of 'flipping' their houses and they are still in parliament.

 

The case of Richard O' Dwyer the University of Sheffield student is even more ridiculous. He was accused of copyright infringement and of making £100,000 over three years on advertising 'hits' linked to his web page.

 

O' Dwyer was based in the UK as were the servers he was using and he made no efforts to direct his web site to the US.

 

I believe that this case was eventually settled by him agreeing to hand over the £100,000 although it isn't clear that he was actually doing anything unlawful

 

Similar cases in the UK and Europe were found not guilty and the European directive on this matter states that if a website is merely acting as a conduit it cannot be held in infringement.

 

Despite this, the US made an extradition application.

 

Why? This was a pure commercial situation which should have been sorted locally.

 

It appears they are doing it because we have been stupid enough to allow them to have the ball in their court at all times.

[L00b]

So yesterday the Tories opened the frontal attack on UKIP by aiming to appease the deserting vote by stating they will effectively leave the European Convention of Human Rights (introduced by Churchill, no not the insurer) by introducing a British Bill of Human Rights.

 

So what do you want in it that isn't in the ECHR? Or, what part of the ECHR do you specifically not want in the BBHR?

By the example of France, which is sure to be followed by the UK under the Tories or UKIP in due course in relation to terrorism-related legislation, might as well do away with freedom of speech

 

Shouting "long live IS" when visiting your local social services office in France gets you 6 months inside these days. He got off lightly I suppose, since the tariff scale is 'up to 5 years inside and a €45k fine'.

 

Who said anything about Strasbourg judges, again?

[firemanbob]

According to the BBC report whilst the US court gets to examine the quality of the evidence, the British court is only allowed to examine the quality of the application.

 

Therefore, there has to be something wrong with the application if we have managed to refuse extradition.

 

 

The link you asked me to read didn't say that though, it said that the U.S had not provided any evidence whatsoever of the alleged damage required to make Gary's offence an Extraditable offence.

 

So nothing wrong with the application other than there was no evidence that Garry had caused any damage, so he wasn't extradited.

[mjw47]

The link you asked me to read didn't say that though, it said that the U.S had not provided any evidence whatsoever of the alleged damage required to make Gary's offence an Extraditable offence.

 

So nothing wrong with the application other than there was no evidence that Garry had caused any damage, so he wasn't extradited.

 

And that will be what was wrong with their application, their original application was made in 2002 and yet they left it until 2004 when the new extradition agreement became law before they tried to enforce it.

 

In their original application they claimed he had done $400,000 worth of damage. Under the new agreement they wouldn't have had to say anything, however, as it was now revealed our Judges were able to ask for proof and they couldn't provide it ,because it was balls.

 

Presumably even our pathetic 'guardians of our liberties' spotted something slightly off key with this one.

 

The District Attorney in charge of the case said that he'd like to see him 'fry' that threat was repeated to McKinnons lawyers in the American embassy in London.

 

The heinous crime he had committed? He hacked into pentagon computers from a dial up connection in his London flat.

 

Was he possibly an IT computer genius, working for the Russians or Chinese and able to crack unbreakable codes?

 

Err possibly not, the computers weren't password protected.

 

He faced up to 70 years imprisonment in the US but got lucky because they jumped the gun and made the original application under a more even handed agreement.

[firemanbob]

And that will be what was wrong with their application, their original application was made in 2002 and yet they left it until 2004 when the new extradition agreement became law before they tried to enforce it.

 

In their original application they claimed he had done $400,000 worth of damage. Under the new agreement they wouldn't have had to say anything, however, as it was now revealed our Judges were able to ask for proof and they couldn't provide it ,because it was balls.

 

Presumably even our pathetic 'guardians of our liberties' spotted something slightly off key with this one.

 

The District Attorney in charge of the case said that he'd like to see him 'fry' that threat was repeated to McKinnons lawyers in the American embassy in London.

 

The heinous crime he had committed? He hacked into pentagon computers from a dial up connection in his London flat.

 

Was he possibly an IT computer genius, working for the Russians or Chinese and able to crack unbreakable codes?

 

Err possibly not, the computers weren't password protected.

 

He faced up to 70 years imprisonment in the US but got lucky because they jumped the gun and made the original application under a more even handed agreement.

 

I thought we was talking about the extradition treaty, not the silly charges that some people are having to face.

[mjw47]

I thought we was talking about the extradition treaty, not the silly charges that some people are having to face.

 

We are, under the old treaty most, if not all of those extradited would not have been, and some may not even have had to face trial in Britain.

 

Under the new treaty, because there is no necessity for the US to provide any actual evidence ,then people are being extradited for relatively minor 'crimes' which could be dealt with quite easily in British courts if they are even considered crimes under British law.

 

This goes right to the heart of the problem, the Americans are abusing the system and their control over it. They can only do so because of the inequality built in to it. This is one of the few things that I find myself in agreement with Nigel Farage, he wants it renegotiating.

 

The main argument for imposing this draconian treaty was national security.

 

The Americans are using it to strengthen their commercial interests.

 

The message being sent in the Mcintyre and O'Dwyer cases is straight forward " don't mess with American companies or business " it has nothing to do with defence of the nation except in a financial sense.

 

The internet is a multi billion pounds business, American companies control it, if you decide to set up an internet company you are going to have to make sure that you don't tread on American toes.

 

They attempted to extradite a young student for making £33,000 a year and forced him to hand over the money even though he wasn't doing anything illegal in his own country.

 

The threat is blatant " don't mess with us".

[firemanbob]

We are, under the old treaty most, if not all of those extradited would not have been, and some may not even have had to face trial in Britain.

 

Under the new treaty, because there is no necessity for the US to provide any actual evidence ,then people are being extradited for relatively minor 'crimes' which could be dealt with quite easily in British courts if they are even considered crimes under British law.

 

This goes right to the heart of the problem, the Americans are abusing the system and their control over it. They can only do so because of the inequality built in to it. This is one of the few things that I find myself in agreement with Nigel Farage, he wants it renegotiating.

 

The main argument for imposing this draconian treaty was national security.

 

The Americans are using it to strengthen their commercial interests.

 

The message being sent in the Mcintyre and O'Dwyer cases is straight forward " don't mess with American companies or business " it has nothing to do with defence of the nation except in a financial sense.

 

The internet is a multi billion pounds business, American companies control it, if you decide to set up an internet company you are going to have to make sure that you don't tread on American toes.

 

They attempted to extradite a young student for making £33,000 a year and forced him to hand over the money even though he wasn't doing anything illegal in his own country.

 

The threat is blatant " don't mess with us".

 

If someone commits a crime against America it is right that they face American justice, if they commit a crime against Britain it is right that they face British justice. If something is against the law in America but not Britain then do what ever it is in Britain and against Britain, not against America.