Mr Tappin’s departure from Heathrow

Back to Forum
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 108 total)

  • LuganoPirate
    Participant

    Just to clarify my remark, while it seems there may be a case to answer, I disagree with the way he was extradited, that he was extradited, that he’s held (till now) without bali in a foreign (to him) country.


    RichHI1
    Participant

    It appears that Mr Tappin will shortly be released on bail and his family will be visiting him. This must be welcome news for the Tappin family.
    As observed in the English and US legal systems there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law.
    It appears that the UK US extradition treaty may be revisited to alter its public perception of equity. Any move that raises public respect for legal process is to be welcomed though there must be concerns that introducing extra steps should hopefully not increase costs for the state or add delay. For those without legal knowledge, there are differences in requirements, tests and legislation in the two countries and there is a comsequent need for these to be accomodated if a more detailed process is devised.
    The European extradition order was used from the Caribbean via Spain to extradite the fraudster who donated to the Lib Dems. It was interesting there was no murmur from the British Press here. (He was convicted in absentia) but interesting the way this process is being exploited to sell newspapers rather than protect the interests of involved parties.
    So now we wait for Mr Tappin’s trial and see whether is guilty or not.


    MartynSinclair
    Participant

    Can somebody please explain the argument for yet another business man being forced to defend an extradition to Sweden and perhaps USA.

    What I dont understand is UK not providing guarnatees & a safe passage for Mr Assange out of the UK, now that he has diplomatic status. Why does the UK continually act like a puppy dog to the USA.

    1. The killer of PC Yvonne Fletcher was chaperoned out of the country under a diplomatic status

    2. USA embassy refusing to pay the conjestion charge in London, playing the embassy diplomatic game

    3. An Israeli diplomat escaping arrest whilst transiting Heathorw in 2005 (Doron Almog),claiming diplomatic status

    I do not usually support the kind of action that Julian A took, hiding in a foreign embassy, but the fact he now appears to have diplomatic status, why are the UK Governement so hell bent on sending him to Sweden, when previously, killers have had rides to the airport courtesy of the police and allowed to fly freely out of the UK.

    I raise this subject again, not to incite discussions and arguments over Julian A’s guilt or innocence, but merely to understand why the UK are hell bent on sending this business man (and yes I beleive he can be described as a business man) to Sweden and or the USA.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    I’m with you on this; Julian A shouldn’t evade justice, but trying him on Swedish charges here in a special court in the UK, doesn’t seem unreasonable given the wider implications.

    There’s plenty for people like Bucksnet to get excited about in this case; personally I don’t think Julian A is who he portrays himself as – and I would imagine that history is what is driving the US to demand extradition.


    LuganoPirate
    Participant

    I’m with you both on this, but Martyn, Julian does not have diplomatic status. Even if he was given Ecuadorian nationality, he would have to be accredited by the UK and that would be highly unlikely.

    It is right he should answer the questions, but it should also be remembered that he has not been charged with any offence in Sweden, he is only wanted for questioning. There is no reason why the Swedes could not question him in the UK. There’s plenty of precedence for that. The S. Africans questioning Dewani and of course the FBI who not only question but accompany the British police when they go after hackers and the like.

    Again the British could insist of Sweden and obtain written guarantees that they would not extradite him to the USA or that following all proceedings he be sent back to his home country Australia, who have been remarkably silent in the protection of their citizen.

    There is also precedence here. A sex offender accused of far more serious offences with minors, and was a US citizen, had the extradition request refused due to the “cruel” and unusual treatment he may have received. I wonder why the US are not kicking up a fuss over that one?

    If he is to leave I think it will be in a crate of personal possession and onto a private jet at dead of night. The crate would have diplomatic protection and the UK would not dare intervene due to the precedence that would set as they also move things about they don’t want others to see!

    Finally, despite all this, I don’t think the US would execute him, and Sweden would be obliged to seek guarantees on this. Further I don’t think the US really want him. It would be too embarrassing and they may even have to prosecute their own press who wilfully propagated the “leaks” as well. I do think they are enjoying all this though and it takes the exposure away from Tappin et al!


    IanFromHKG
    Participant

    LP, you beat me to the punch (I hit the reply button, and while the new page loaded your reply appeared). Like you, I was going to point out the distinction between diplomatic status (which grants immunity under the Vienna Convention) and political asylum, which is an entirely different juridical creature. Mr Assange has the latter, not the former. The latter is only really meaningful when in the territory of the country that has granted asylum. So long as Mr Assange remains in the Ecuadorian embassy, he should be regarded as being on Ecuadorian soil. The moment he leaves that territory – and let’s face it, he can only do that by entering British soil – he loses the protection that goes with that status, and could be seized by the UK authorities in order to fulfil their obligations to extradite him to Sweden. And it is this issue, Martyn, which goes directly to your question about why the UK will not grant safe passage – as I understand it, they don’t really have that option without themselves granting him asylum. Under the extradition treaty, the UK is obliged to send Mr Assange to Sweden, once all the procedural steps have been completed (which I think they have). Mr Assange is not, after all, being accused of political crimes in Sweden, they are sex crimes.

    While I share, I suspect, the fears of many of this board that the real motives behind his extradition are Mr Assange’s “political” activities – or, at least, the embarrassment he has caused to politicians – he has in fact been accused of sexual offences and these are the grounds on which an extradition order has been made.

    On the question of whether he could be smuggled out in a diplomatic bag – that should not occur. Under the Vienna Convention, although the diplomatic bag “shall not be opened or detained”, the bag “may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use”. I doubt if Mr Assange falls in that category


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    How is Mr Tappin, by the way?

    Thankfully, looks like the engines on the US Air Force PJ are running warm on the tarmac and we’ll be rid of the odious Hamza this weekend.


    LuganoPirate
    Participant

    I’m also curious as to what’s happening to Mr. Tappin. I guess negotiations are continuing?

    I’m not holding my breath on Hamza. I just wonder why it takes two years to extradite Tappin, but Hamza is now over eight years and still not gone. On top, all at taxpayers expense!


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    Well, The Claw has gone and good riddance. I hope he enjoys the US:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19853903

    There’s something very wrong when it takes eight years and millions of pounds to deport such an odious character, but others are slung on a plane without a proper hearing in a matter of months.


    Bruce98
    Participant

    “Well, The Claw has gone and good riddance. I hope he enjoys the US:”

    But I bet his family are still living on benefits in the UK.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    I read that there are moves afoot to house them in more appropriate circumstances now the number of residents has reduced.


    ImissConcorde
    Participant

    ” house them in more appropriate circumstances”
    This would appear to be Wormwood Scrubs for the sons in view of their criminal records.


    Bucksnet
    Participant

    Bruce98 – 06/10/2012 09:22 GMT – “But I bet his family are still living on benefits in the UK.”

    His family will probably be a burden on the state for the rest of their lives because the government won’t deport them, and we won’t vote against it in anywhere near sufficient numbers. And there are no ‘moves afoot’ to rehouse them; they have only been asked to consider moving to a smaller council house.

    Anyway, good riddance. If we wasn’t in the EU he would have been gone long ago.


    AnthonyDunn
    Participant

    Erm, I’m lost… After the odd brickbat fired in my direction over recent weeks and months, questioning the relevance of “the odd” posting of mine, I am struggling to get my head around what Assange or claw-hand might have to do with BT? If there’s an amusing and related YouTube video, then that’s all right then…

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 108 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Business Traveller March 2024 edition
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls