egafd.com

Does anyone else think that this Act is an afront to British justice? The fact that George Bush's arse wipe, Tony Blair, allowed legislation that gave the Yanks the right to come over and pluck British subjects out of the UK, to stand trial in the US, with little or no evidence, whilst we can't do the same to them?

This Act needs to be adjusted so that it is totally reciprocal and balanced in every way. I believe the present bunch of tossers promised to do as such, but as yet nothing has happened...........Quel surprise!

Why doesn't HM Gov just declare the UK, "America's 53rd State" and be finished with it?

Ah the effects of the passing of time and the movement from opposition to government.

"It aint our fault. We appointed an official review and it's their decision that we are implementing"

Oldest trick in the political book, if you don't want to implement something that you promised to do once elected, have an "official review" to tell you not to implement it.

July 2009
The Conservatives will today use a Commons vote to signal their opposition to the proposal to extradite Gary McKinnon to the US to face trial for hacking into American military computers. Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said he hoped MPs would "send a message" to the government that McKinnon, who has Asperger's syndrome, ought to be put on trial in the UK and not in the US, where he faces a sentence of up to 60 years.

September 2011
"In response to concerns, the Home Secretary Theresa May appointed The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker to conduct an official review of the UK's extradition treaties, with the assistance of two independent extradition experts. The review was directed to address evidence standards and whether the US-UK Extradition Treaty is unbalanced. Sir Scott Baker's report was presented to the Home Secretary on September 30, 2011, and concluded that there is no substantial difference in evidence standards, that the treaty is balanced and that there is not "any basis to conclude that extradition from the United Kingdom to the US operates unfairly or oppressively"[

Our courts will just give anyone up if another country says they want them, after all we are British and play by the rules... when in fact we are just the whipping boys of a lot of other nations !sad!

I believe the fundamental difference that Lord Justice Scott hadn't noticed is this:

"The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said the "tragic" case of computer hacker Gary McKinnon emphasised the need for British courts to have the power to refuse extradition in the "interests of justice".

Campaigners at the American Embassy in London called for the extradition case against Gary McKinnon to be reviewed

The letter was sent as Liberty, the ACLU's sister group in the UK, staged a protest outside the American Embassy in London, alongside Mr McKinnon's mother Janis Sharp.
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero told Mr Miliband he was concerned that the extradition treaty posed a threat to the rights of British people.

He said the "unfair lopsided aspect" of the treaty meant that while Americans could only be extradited to the UK if "probable cause" had been established, there was no equivalent provision for Britons facing extradition to the US. This left British residents exposed to the risk of "ill-founded" extradition requests."

Pinch me! Jim and DJ in general agreement.

I believe thet the Visiting Powers Act is still in force. This was an Act enabled during the last WW to accomodate the US forces stationed here to give them authority over their service personel. I think that the only distinction they had to comply with was the British system of hanging.
I did read a few years ago that an American airman stationed at Bentwaters Air Force Base was rapidly flown back to the good ole USofA after he had run down and killed a Brit pedestrian and buggered off without stopping.
Seems that them bastards can do what they like and our useless governments let them.