|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 15:17:33 GMT
So they had fair hearings in open courts about their extradiction. Then they were given a fair hearing in an open US court and were found guilty. Then they are serving their sentence in prison in the UK, with access to all the usual channels of representation and appeal etc?
Sorry, but I really can't get worked up over this supposed TRAMPLING OF ANCIENT FREEDOMS.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 15:19:49 GMT
(PS - The "Blair" card is unfair. Playing dirty. It has the same effect on me as, say, "Tessa Jowell" or "Stephen Gerrard". Use it in the right way, and I'll concede bloody anything...)
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 10, 2009 15:34:13 GMT
The 'fair hearing' in the British courts were about the legality of the extradition, not the case.
That is an entirely different matter.
Bush failed to honour his side of the agreement, therefore there is no agreement.
The arrangements have given US courts jurisdiction over British people in the UK.
If a statement was made on this board, for example, any one of us, who lives in the UK, could be extraditied to the US for trial.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 15:40:13 GMT
Still a good few fair hearings, proper representation, recourse to various channels of appeal, assessment of evidence etc etc etc. It's just not 1984. It's really not. Sorry.
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 15:43:43 GMT
I'd be interested to see evidence of their fair trial in America, because I didn't think they had a trial at all. Omni?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 10, 2009 15:45:16 GMT
The only one to mention 1984 is you.
The hearing tested the validity of the extradition arrangements.
The hearing concluded that the arrangements were legal.
That is the end of the matter. No further hearings on the subject.
US courts can extradite British people living in the UK, with impunity.
No further hearings on the points of law that have been raised so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 15:45:52 GMT
Well they pleaded guilty according to this. "David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby - the so-called NatWest Three - have been sentenced after admitting to wire fraud. A Texas judge announced the sentence, thereby approving a plea-bargain deal" news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7258061.stm |
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 15:49:01 GMT
They sound like right cnuts actually. The NatWest Three, the British bankers whose fight against extradition to the United States became a cause célèbre, have been sentenced to three years in prison for their bit-part in the fraud that sank the US energy giant Enron. Almost eight years after they illegally pocketed $7.3m (£4m) in a secret deal with Enron, and after almost as many years protesting their innocence, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby yesterday made public apologies in a courtroom in Houston, Texas, as a judge approved a plea bargain struck two months ago. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/natwest-three-given-threeyear-jail-sentences-for-enron-fraud-786152.html |
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 15:49:10 GMT
Exactly - after the UK didn't prosecute them because it couldn't find suffiicent evidence that they'd done anything wrong, they were sent to America on even less evidence where their trial was repeatedly delayed (and there were some difficulties regarding witnesses) until they accepted a plea bargain to get it sorted and finally return to their native country. I'd do the same.
It's a fooking disgrace and quite honestly if it was any country other that apathetic Britain there'd be people battering down the gates of Parliament. It's a helluva lot more important to me than someone having a fiver shaved off their dole money, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 10, 2009 15:51:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 15:53:01 GMT
Some corrupt millionaire bankers commit a massive crime, and after numerous fair hearings they get a short sentence in an open prison, and this is more important to you than the welbeing and opportunities of millions of the nation's poorest citizens?
Your wiring has gone seriously wrong.
Not that it's a valid choice, of course. Because the Tories are no better on the civil liberties front. The choice is:
helping the worst off plus having liberties infringed Vs making the worst off even less well off plus having liberties infringed.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 10, 2009 16:01:46 GMT
Not that it's a valid choice, of course. Because the Tories are no better on the civil liberties front. No they are, on the face of it, much worse. That would be all the more frightening. But worse that all of that is the way our society has become so fractured and divided along blind partisan lines that no-one seems to notice. Even people like you. Now, that is truely ominous. |
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 16:02:27 GMT
We don't know they committed the crime. They didn't get any hearings on the crime itself, fair or otherwise. Is this more important to me than someone getting a few pence less of free money each week? Yes.
Whether you and I agree on it isn't the point really, I think I am not the only one who thinks this is an important issue even if you don't care about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 16:06:58 GMT
No I know it's not just you. Many lofty liberal types get very hot under the collar about academic issues like this and think it's worth screwing millions of their fellow citizens over to make a point about it to the benefit of no-one and nothing apart from their sensibilities.
Not that, as I said, it's a choice you'll ever have. The next government will be just as bad on civil liberties, no matter who they are. The decision is about whether you a) want to make the country loads worse, or b) don't.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,101
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 10, 2009 16:07:06 GMT
Anyone heard the latest? Brown's closest economic advisor and ex head of HBOS sacked the man who tried to blow the whistle on the risks HBOS were taking. That's Brown, in bed with the man who tried to cover the HBOS side of the banking crisis up.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 16:09:29 GMT
Did that come through on your RSS feed from Guido Fawks site, Mids...?
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 16:09:35 GMT
Unless there is a dramatic shift in policy in at least one of the parties, I won't vote at all. Because while I think not voting is terrible, voting for a party you really don't want in power seems insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 16:13:40 GMT
Now I can understand that.
Disagree, of course. I'm too old and / or miserably beaten down to be idealist I think - you don't get long in the world, you might as well make the best of it. Which, translated to politics, means voting for the best option. In my opinion.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,101
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 10, 2009 16:16:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 16:19:38 GMT
Hoho. As if you don't spend all your spare (i.e. not on here) time browsing stark raving mad rightwin....err... independent, grass roots political blogs, Mids..
As for the rightwing press - they've clearly decided to chuck all their eggs in the Cameron basket. Will be funny. As. Fcuk. If the slimey little scrote loses.
|
|
