Rights are indeed rights

District judge Margaret Rose said: “I have found after hearing the evidence that extradition would not be incompatible with the defendant’s Article 6 [fair trial] or Article 10 [freedom of expression] rights.

“However, his Article 5 right to liberty and security would be at risk if he were to go back and convicted in New York state and face indefinite imprisonment, therefore he is discharged.

We have decided, rightly in my view although anyone’s entirely free to disagree, that an indefinite sentence is unjust. Therefore no one, not even a paedo kiddie rapist black foreigner, can be extradited to face an indefinite sentence.

This is not human rights gone mad this is the system working exactly as it ought to.

86 thoughts on “Rights are indeed rights”

  1. I don’t get it. We also have indefinite imprisonment. I seem to recall that the first conviction for having Japanesey hentai featured one such indefinite incarceration.

  2. She released him simply because he’s guilty? (If he were not guilty, he wouldn’t be at risk of that sentence.)

  3. Perhaps someone can explain to me why having this nigger kiddy fiddler here is a cause for celebration. Is this justice for his victims? No. But some hypocritical lefty ‘judge’ got to feel good about her ‘right on’ credentials

  4. Can you extradite someone to a sentence of life without parole?

    At least the system has to be changed to “you have the right to liberty unless you do any of the things on this list (insert criminal code here).”

    Constitutionally-defined rights are increasingly morphing from negative to positive rights. I’m sure if the German constitution said everyone has the right to own a pushbike, the courts would now be interpreting that as the government has to give everyone who wants one, a pushbike, rather than stop them owning the one they already have.

  5. I agree the system – technically – is working, but it’s like a mechanically perfect car being driven off the side of the road. The Human Rights convention was borne out of the horrors of WW2 – what has a case like this got to do with preventing another holocaust?

    Are we next going to refuse to extradite in a case where the expected sentence is, say, 20 years where as we would only impose 15?

    Blocking extradition where they would face a sentence as irreversible as death I can understand, but this one clearly needs locking up and if he’s never on the streets again – in NY or anywhere else – then I’m more than happy with that.

  6. @Robert the Biker

    ‘Perhaps someone can explain to me why having this nigger kiddy fiddler here is a cause for celebration.’

    I don’t think anyone is celebrating having him here – I’m certainly not.

    However, yes, I can explain.

    We have the rule of law, not mob rule. You might prefer mob rule, but first they came – to imagine Niemöller using your expression – for the nigger kiddy fiddlers. When they came for the gobshite bikers, there was no-one left to speak up.

    @IanB

    I haven’t looked at the case but it’s perhaps that he wouldn’t face an indeterminate sentence here for that offence.

  7. The more interesting question (to me) is why we extradite anyone to the US.

    Their legal system appears to be based on the following conversation:

    If you plead guilty you’ll get five years.

    If you go to trial there is a 99% chance you’ll be convicted, and if you are convicted you are looking at 500 years without parole.

    Unsurprisingly, many people choose to plead.

  8. Ahh, here we go:
    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19630617

    “Jailing offenders indefinitely without providing proper access to rehabilitation courses is a breach of human rights, European judges rule.”

    So we’re only allowed to deport criminals to countries with indeterminate sentences if those countries also offer rehabilitation courses. That seems like an unnecessary restriction, but a court has ruled that that is indeed the intent of the legislation.

    All the U.S. has to do is promise him a rehabilitation course (or promise a determinate sentence), and he’ll be deported in no time. That worked for sending Abu Qatada to Jordan, eventually.

  9. I would agree with the need for a little certainty, however I dont see a problem with “throw away the key”.

    Do the US actually (outside of Gitmo) do indeterminate (rather than indefinite) sentences? With the amount of lawyers and the constitution here, I’d be surprised.

  10. Nonces, pervs, slot badgers, bush dodgers, small bean regarders, unabummers, nut administrators, bent refs, chimney bottlers and shrub rocketeers…

    Welcome to Britain!

    Vir Cantium – agree the system – technically – is working, but it’s like a mechanically perfect car being driven off the side of the road.

    It’s like a mechanically perfect car being driven at top speed through a playground. Our criminal justice shields foreign kiddie fuckers and hook-handed terrorists, but if you’re an Englishman who makes a rude comment on Twitter: you’re nicked, sunshine.

  11. bloke (not) in spain

    @Interested
    “We have the rule of law, not mob rule. You might prefer mob rule, but first they came – to imagine Niemöller using your expression – for the nigger kiddy fiddlers. When they came for the gobshite bikers, there was no-one left to speak up.”

    You do, indeed, have a rule of law. And UK citizens do consensually live under that rule of law. For that is the deal, isn’t it? You obey the law & the law protects you from the wrongdoings of others.
    Why the full protection of British law is extended to those who aren’t British, escapes me.

  12. Wasn’t it once the system that we wouldn’t protect someone from his own government? That they were the proper people to make such decisions?

    I suppose that was something else that changed in response to the Boche Beastliness.

  13. @bnis, the full protection of English law is granted to people in England because people in England, even if they are not British, and even if they are not here legally, are subject to that law in full. Same as the duty of care you owe to a trespasser on your property – the fact you don’t want him there doesn’t mean you can treat him any differently.

  14. So Much for Subtlety

    We have decided, rightly in my view although anyone’s entirely free to disagree, that an indefinite sentence is unjust.

    Who’s this we Kemosabe?

    Interested – “We have the rule of law, not mob rule. You might prefer mob rule, but first they came – to imagine Niemöller using your expression – for the nigger kiddy fiddlers. When they came for the gobshite bikers, there was no-one left to speak up.”

    Except this is not the rule of law. This is the rule of some self-selected gobshites who have decided they do not like the views of the electorate and so have imposed theirs instead. The rule of law involves Parliament, a British Parliament at that, passing laws. Not a bunch of foreigners deciding, over what is clearly the strong preferences of the British population, that they know best.

    This is arbitrary ex Cathedra pronouncement. Not law.

    Interested – “If you go to trial there is a 99% chance you’ll be convicted, and if you are convicted you are looking at 500 years without parole.”

    The US does not even remotely have close to a 99% conviction rate.

  15. We don’t have rule of law. We have rule by lawyers and I can’t say that I like it. I don’t recall having a vote on allowing the world’s criminal dross to pitch up here, never mind stay.

  16. @SMFS

    Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious. The conviction rate was humorous exaggeration to make a point. Nowhere has a 99% rate barring North Korea, I expect.

  17. It’s not rule by lawyers, it’s a bulwark against the awesome power of the State.

    I repeat, first they came for the NKFs.

  18. What Steve said. Squared.

    Our justice system is supposed to work for us, not for the consciences of some elderly ‘Guardian’ reader on the bench.

  19. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Wasn’t it once the system that we wouldn’t protect someone from his own government? That they were the proper people to make such decisions?”

    That may have been the case, but we are not the vassals of any Government, which is why we now have the rule of law and offer people political asylum.

  20. So Much for Subtlety

    Sebastian Weetabix – “We don’t have rule of law. We have rule by lawyers and I can’t say that I like it.”

    It is a Leftie lawyer’s wet dream. They get an endless amount of work. And in the end, they get to rub everyone noses into “diversity”.

    “I don’t recall having a vote on allowing the world’s criminal dross to pitch up here, never mind stay.”

    The Blair government sent people around the world begging these sh!ts to move here.

    Interested – “Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious. The conviction rate was humorous exaggeration to make a point.”

    What point would that be? Although I can think of a few. Pray tell, what percentage of convictions would be low enough for you to deign to send some low life to the US? 75%? 50%? What?

    “Nowhere has a 99% rate barring North Korea, I expect.”

    Japan is not far off.

    Interested – “It’s not rule by lawyers, it’s a bulwark against the awesome power of the State.”

    No it isn’t. This is the State f**king over their voters. This is the State exercising their power in full contempt of the public. The awesome power of the State is limited by the will of the voters in a genuine democracy. This is the State letting us know they are beyond our power and there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it.

    “I repeat, first they came for the NKFs.”

    Good. They should come for murderers and rapists and kiddie fiddlers. Then give them a fair trial. Then execute them. What is it about this process that upsets you so much?

  21. Difficult. The guy is accused of having sex with his daughters, one of whom, to judge by the charges, was then under 13.

    An anonymous official in Liberia claims that the accused’s ex-wife told him that she made up the allegation.

    So what’s a worstallian commentator to think? Is this “evil black kiddie fiddler set free by mad human rights judge”? Or is it “upstanding doctor’s life destroyed by evil harridan it’s a conspiracy against men”?

    Me, I note that despite the seriousness of the charges he was released on $10k bail, and officials forgot to confiscate his Liberian passport. Does that suggest the court thought he was unlikely to be convicted?

  22. So Much for Subtlety

    PaulB – “So what’s a worstallian commentator to think? Is this “evil black kiddie fiddler set free by mad human rights judge”? Or is it “upstanding doctor’s life destroyed by evil harridan it’s a conspiracy against men”?”

    I don’t know. How about we send him back to his own country so a court of law can test the allegations against him? Instead of, you know, inviting him to move next to some British 13 year old girls.

    “Me, I note that despite the seriousness of the charges he was released on $10k bail, and officials forgot to confiscate his Liberian passport. Does that suggest the court thought he was unlikely to be convicted?”

    Not really. It suggests the usual level of efficiency plus the Courts’ habitual love of serious criminals who pay for their pensions after all.

  23. Interested

    The State is pure evil and imposes itself on our natural private lives (see yesterday’s discussion on marriage contracts and divorce laws). When the State does something we like, however, then anyone raising an objection to it is a self – selected gobshite.

    Try to understand.

  24. Well Paul, the usual procedure is that most of the commentariat go with evil black kiddie fiddler, I go with victim of harridan, then Ironman weighs in and 100 comments later we’ve lost track of what we were arguing about until the next thread. Accusations of child abuse by spouses are common these days, but then incest is quite common too so, shrugs, we don’t know do we?

  25. Wandering off topic, I was reminded yesterday of Rebecca Leighton, who most everyone has forgotten about. She was the nurse hauled out into the national press accused of poisoning patients, career ruined, licence revoked. Another (male) nurse is now on trial for it, and she eventually got compensation, but it’s another reminder of the dangers of trial by press. Or rather, trial by police briefing the press.

  26. Given that the entire US system is based on bargaining and that the extradition treaty was negotiated by the last Labour government when we were already subject to over-riding European laws, why does the system not provide for extradition to take place only after the U.S. Prosecuting authorities have agreed to rule out seeking sentences that are incompatible with European law?

  27. @PaulB

    ‘So what’s a worstallian commentator to think?’

    Not sure – we tend not to do groupthink like you lot.

    However, one thing a decent worstallian commentator should not do is reveal (or propogate) the identity of an abused child on the world wide web.

    Just saying.

  28. So Much for Subtlety

    Ironman – “When the State does something we like, however, then anyone raising an objection to it is a self – selected gobshite.”

    The State has a limited number of proper functions. One of them is protecting us from enemies from within and without. A function the British State has largely given up trying to accomplish.

    It is not unreasonable to expect the British government to do its most basic functions. Its fundamental reason for being. Making sure kiddie fiddlers are locked up, in another country by preference, is one of those core functions.

    “What are kingdoms without justice? They’re just gangs of bandits”

    We are a kingdom without justice. It won’t take long before people start acting like bandits.

  29. @SMFS

    ‘What point would that be?’

    The one you are missing, not unusually.

    ‘No it isn’t. This is the State f**king over their voters. This is the State exercising their power in full contempt of the public. The awesome power of the State is limited by the will of the voters in a genuine democracy. This is the State letting us know they are beyond our power and there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it.’

    Yes there is. Form a political party, run for government, on a platform of changing the law and withdrawing from treaties you don’t like.

    If you’re right, and the majority of Britons agree with you, then it should be a piece of piss, even for you.

  30. Again, folks, pay attention to the caveat at the bottom of the article…

    “Judge Rose remanded Bowen in custody until US authorities could be contacted but said he could in the near future be bailed with a surety of £10,000.

    Bail conditions would include no access to his passport, no international travel and a 12 hour electronic curfew plus daily reports to a police station.”

    In short the message here is “Dear New York State, do try again but come back next time with a better offer.”

  31. So it.would.seem the function of the State is to.do the things SMFS wants it to do, in the manner he prescribes of course. To suggest you believe it to be otherwise. In one’s capacity as a member of an immigration or extradition tribunal for example makes one a “self – selected gobshite”. The State’s purpose is NOT to do things he believes it shouldn’t do, which would be the “State letting us know they are beyond our power”.
    In either such case “people” will start acting like bandits.

    Thanks for explaining; oh the things I am learning. I can now safely put aside.all that jurisprudence bollocks that had been holding me back.

  32. A couple of points:

    Life sentences were brought in as an alternative to the death penalty precisely to be whole life sentences. Please don’t tell me the State lied to the public, oh no!

    Rule of Law is great, fine, the best thing, but can we have rule under laws we can actually change if we don’t like them, say by electing people to some sort of Parliament with the power to make such laws?

  33. So it is not clear if he is a kiddie fiddler.

    The Yanks don’t have a 99% conviction rate but the Federal scum maintain an 83% conviction rate. The achieve this by vague laws that allow even minor accusations to accrue sentences designed to punish the Wandering Jew or Captain Van der Decken more than an ordinary human being and then plea bargaining.

    I would not send a dog to receive any sort of trial in the US.

    As for the guilt aspect–well, one of the worst evils of the false accusations is that they muddy the waters and faith in “justice” is undermined still further. Who knows if he did it or not. But he does deserve a fair trial. Because if he can be railroaded so can any of us.

  34. I thought the issue, spurious though I think it is, was about the possibility of an indefinite sentence. Are people seriously claiming the man wouldn’t receive a fair trial in the United States? Really?

    If you won’t extradite to the US on these grounds then you have a list of probably about a dozen countries you would extradite to. Truly then Britain would be a “safe haven”. Not sure it’s the sort of safe haven most people really want though.

  35. @Rob

    ‘Are people seriously claiming the man wouldn’t receive a fair trial in the United States? Really?’

    It really depends on what you mean by a fair trial.

    Plea bargaining is a MASSIVE issue over there. Factor in the cost of a decent lawyer and it is a very brave man INDEED who pleads not guilty to any serious offence, even if he is not guilty and any reasonable jury ought to accept it.

    Say you’re caught with 100kg of coke which has been planted in your truck (it happens).

    Here, you have a trial and if you get potted you get twenty years and serve ten. Terrible but not disastrous.

    There you get potted and you will never see daylight again.

  36. bloke (not) in spain

    @BiG
    “@bnis, the full protection of English law is granted to people in England because people in England, even if they are not British, and even if they are not here legally, are subject to that law in full.”
    Which seems entirely right & proper. For if one comes to the UK, there’s an implied consent to live according to the laws of the UK. So therefore a foreign national should expect to be treated equally in relation to those laws.
    But why should a foreign national expect UK law to intrude into the relationship he has with the laws & justice system he has in his own country. I can understand why UK government might choose to do so. Or not choose to do so. It should be a bureaucratic decision, each case treated o its merits. That’s why we have bureaucrats & pay them. To make choices on our behalf.
    Beats me why it becomes a matter for courts.

  37. Hmm; so we have “whole of life orders”, where a criminal is imprisoned for life with no possibility for parole, but that’s OK because there is a “possible exceptional release … on compassionate grounds” by the Home Secretary.

    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/feb/18/whole-life-sentences-can-continue-appeal-court-rules

    That exceptional release has only been granted once (Reggie Kray, who dies a few weeks after), plus three releases under the Good Friday Agreement.

    The US imprisons for life, but the President (or the Governor, for State offences) can pardon or grant a commutation. Presidents issue dozens of pardons.

    The difference?

  38. Rob is right – the legal issue was not the fair trial (although I share the doubts about the US system) but the possibility of a life without parole sentence. Read Tim’s original quote.

  39. Tim’s post here is important. There is no point us raging at our failure to deport Abu Qatada or a “Nigger kiddie fiddler” and then lament that we can’t stop the extradition of ‘nice grandparents’ from middle England who’ve ripped off their employers. We can be certain they do indeed have safeguards working for them precisely because we’ve taken such care to ensue the rights of “Nigger kiddie fiddlers” are protected.

  40. There is no point us raging at our failure to deport Abu Qatada or a “Nigger kiddie fiddler” and then lament that we can’t stop the extradition of ‘nice grandparents

    Deportation and extradition are very different things.

    One is because the person’s continued presence in the country is not in the public interest.

    The other is because another jurisdiction wishes to prosecute (or punish, if already prosecuted) them.

    It isn’t unreasonable to have different barriers and considerations related to the judicial implementation of them.

    As mere examples. For deportation – must not be a UK citizen; must have been sentenced to at least x months / years in prison; must not face severe risk to live in country for deportation (target may be allowed to choose a different country if they’ll have him.) For extradition (and I know it doesn’t currently work this way) – offence must be of sufficient seriousness to justify the ‘punishment’ of being sent abroad for trial; offence must be dual criminality; country must have effective reciprocal extradition (this would block any extradition to the US, at the moment, of course.)

  41. SE

    Yes, loose language. And thinking back I think Qatada was a deportation; not an extradition. Our alleged kiddie fiddler (would you mind me dropping the ‘nigger’ now) would be an extradition.

    However, I think the general principle applies: if we ensure the law is scrupulous here then it will be scrupulous for us should, God forbid, the time come. This is also why we need to ensure the State’s remit is clear and it is disinterested and blind in exercising it’s remit.

  42. Naps jam

    In support of my previous point: if I can make Robert the Biker fuck off, then somebody can make me fuck off. I’m not planning on fucking off any time soon. Sorry Interested.

  43. Oh, I’m lumping it – and I suppose it serves as a big sign saying “I’m a racist idiot, pay no attention to me” – but it’s offensive and it demeans a cool forum which functions year round without this kind of shit showing up.

  44. SMFS: “The rule of law involves Parliament, a British Parliament at that, passing laws.”

    O rly? I take it you’ve not heard of the common law, evolving since (literally) time immemorial, The first English Parliament sat 750 years ago yesterday, so is a much more new-fangled innovation…

  45. Bloke in North Dorset

    @BNiS
    “Or not choose to do so. It should be a bureaucratic decision, each case treated o its merits. That’s why we have bureaucrats & pay them. To make choices on our behalf.
    Beats me why it becomes a matter for courts.”
    I’ve just spent nearly 3 years working with a bunch of civil servants. Generally nice people, plodders who just want to choose the path of least resistance and not have to make “brave” decisions. In the first instance they could make the decision and maybe even make a recommendation to a minister, but in the end having seen them at work I want a backstop and the courts are the best we have.

    I know its a different situation and a different time, but bureaucrats wanted Michael Hesletine to sign a PII in the Matrix Churchill case. As I understand it if he had that would have been it for those defendants.

  46. Mr Ecks: “…the Federal scum maintain an 83% conviction rate. The[y] achieve this by vague laws that allow even minor accusations to accrue sentences…”

    Don’t forget the “throw a metric shedload of charges at a ‘perp’ (they must be, they’ve done a ‘perp walk’) so juries will find at least a couple they feel happy can vote guilty on and still feel they’ve been moderate” technique…

  47. if we ensure the law is scrupulous here then it will be scrupulous for us should, God forbid, the time come.

    Obviously (well, to me at least). As was said here previously, everybody is in favour of free speech with which they agree. And the Will Roper point, and statues of Justice being blindfolded.

    Raping children is a very wrong thing (and fleeing from bail is a fairly wrong thing.) These should be investigated. Whether the (pretty low) bar for an extradition under s84 Extradition Act 2003.

    Without knowing the details of the case, I’m reluctant to comment further on whether this judgement was right or wrong (while noting that that is probably different to “legally sound or not”.)

  48. @Napsjam:
    Go fuck yourself, like all whiny hypocrites you have no answer or contribution to make so it’s the usual meaningless babble noise of ‘racism’, whatever that is. Blow me fuckwit, if Tim has a problem he will tell me and I will respect his view as it’s his blog.

    As to the mention of accused and passports etc., many Americans don’t have a passport and it is perfectly possible the court forbade him a US one without knowing he had a Liberian one. If he coul;d afford the 10K bail, he could afford a lawyer who would have been provided by the court in any case.
    No, this bloke skipped bail, turned up in Africa then moved about and came here. Why, what is his connection with this country that he should be admitted. He next turns up in Milton Keynes with a magic new family so he has all these ‘rights’.
    Could he have been falsley accused? Certainly, though it’s not just a case of saying ‘he done it’, there is such a thing as medical evidence after all and the appearance of an (ex?) wife on a vengeance kick is something the authorities would be right on top of; convicting him is page six stuff, catching her doing this type of crap is page two.
    Whatever, he should have to face the court in his own country absent the charges cannot be shown to be malicious or politically motivated, and seeing as how he’s oh so buhlack (Happy) he is a more or less protected species and would be given every leeway.

  49. Robert, between the end of the first paragraph and up to “politically motivated” at the end of para 3, what you’re saying is pretty sensible.

    The offensive irrelevant bullshit remains offensive and irrelevant and doesn’t belong here.

  50. As to the mention of accused and passports etc., many Americans don’t have a passport

    Whatever, he should have to face the court in his own country

    He’s not a Yank, he’s Liberian (aka where he ‘turned up in Africa’). He’d been arrested, charged, bailed and is now being requested extradition to the USA because that is where the offences occurred.

    Frankly, I don’t see a category difference between the extradition arguments in this case and that of the left’s favourite egregious Aussie narcissist.

  51. Napsjam

    What exactly is your problem here? All he said was “niggers” are a “protected species”. Nothing to complain about (and.nothing.for.me.to.get.angry.about.FULLSTOP)

  52. The thing about laws is that honest people generally don’t need them to constrain their actions and dishonest people ignore them.

    As mentioned elsewhere the Human Rights legislation was born out of WWII but does anyone imagine the following conversation if the legislation had been in existence in 1933?

    Hitler “I want to murder all the jews”
    Himmler “But that would breach their human rights”
    Hitler “Oh. Alright then, I won’t”

  53. Sorry, should have expanded.

    And is therefore entitled to stay in the UK, without conditions, for three months under Article 6 of EU Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004.

    According to some of the linked articles, the US Marshall’s Service found that he was visiting the UK and slapped in an extradition request, so he was detained when he arrived.

    Whether he is entitled to remain in the UK if the extradition request is refused is a different question (Article 7). He can, technically, be sent back to the Netherlands.

  54. @Napsjam
    Offensive and Irrelevant to who? Complain to Tim, as I said I shall abide by his decree. If you think his race did not have an impact on this, you need to get out in the fresh air more.
    @SE,
    Maybe I read something in there as did not exist, as someone living in America with a wife and family, I took him as fairly settled and therefore a Yank. Whatever, he has no business HERE that I can see. He ran a ‘free’ hospital in Liberia, so is he a ‘real’ doctor? If so, we are talking serious schooling and therefore time

  55. @SE
    I’d dearly like to know the history of this, since he was resident in one country (USA) fled to a second (Liberia) where he stayed for some time and then traipsed through Europe before turfing up here on a Dutch passport, where he was pulled. He had one family in the Staes and now has another here who may or may not have moved about with him. Seriously, leaving aside the question of child molestation, this clown sounds as dodgy as a three pound note!

  56. @Ironman

    ‘I’m not planning on fucking off any time soon. Sorry Interested.’

    Have I asked that you do?

  57. To establish guilt he needs a fair trial. Where will he get one?

    Liberia: If memory serves wasn’t Liberia the place the ex-dictator Doe was served up his own ears with a plate of rice by his successor? It was videoed and was the most popular video in Liberia that year. Fair trial-prob not?

    USA: Increasingly not. As discussed above vague laws/ ludicrous multiple charges (I think the record is a 1000 plus)/ ever more venal judges/prosecutors who are almost legally untouchable despite egregious misconduct / the malice of the Federal govt/trial by medja etc
    UK: Not as bad as the Yanks but still not good esp on sex matters. We have no jurisdiction anyway but if there is a chance he is innocent we shouldn’t just throw him to the wolves either.

    A puzzler.

  58. Napsjam

    “The offensive irrelevant bullshit remains offensive and irrelevant and doesn’t belong here.”

    What? It’s Tim’s blog; who are any of us to prescribe what “belongs”?

    From my experience, this blog is full of people interested more in free speech than worrying about those who might be politically offended. I’ve read far more colourful on here – hence guessing perhaps that you don’t visit too often?

  59. Why is it OK for a black rapper to self-describe as “nigger” but not for anyone else to use the word? One rule for all, as far as I am concerned.

  60. I think when Napsjam said “it (the irrelevant racist crap) doesn’t belong here” he was expressing his opinion. That’s fine on its blog isn’t it?

  61. “he was expressing his opinion”

    In which case, same as me..:)

    And I only asked the question, rather than make a statement…

    Sorry, pendant’s alert; I’ll go away!

  62. Robert,

    From the Telegraph article:

    Bowen, a doctor who ran a public hospital in his native Liberia, was charged with rape and criminal sex acts in New York in March 2010.

    Similar in the FrontPageAfrica article PaulB linked to – where the DA actually states that Bowen was a Liberian national when he was bailed.

    My understanding of it is that he goes Liberia -> USA (arrested and bailed) -> Liberia (where he ran the hospital for some years) -> Netherlands Liberia) UK & arrest (probably not on his first visit.)

  63. We have no jurisdiction anyway but if there is a chance he is innocent we shouldn’t just throw him to the wolves either.

    Actually, we do. s72(3) Sexual Offences Act 2003. (I think – it depends entirely on what is meant by ‘relevant time’)

  64. SE

    Which does seem to take us back to Tim’s original point: we apply legal protections and processes to all who come here. Surely the standards to which we adhere and the tests we apply are the same for this individual as to anybody born and raised in, say, Cheltenham

    It may be obvious to you. If, however, the obvious isn’t evidently obvious to all then it bears repeating.

  65. Oh, just noticed that my double arrows above were “helpfully amended”. Liberia to Netherlands (and back and forth) and to Liberia to UK (and back and forth – enough to establish a pattern that the Marshall’s Service recognised.)

  66. PF, I do visit often, and no, you haven’t seen similar or worse that i can remember. I treasure the debate here – great stuff. But Tim’s enemies – or victims – visit and will use Biker’s stupid stuff to hurt Tim’s credibility. I don’t want that. Not sure what Tim will do – I doubt he’s ever suppressed a comment, and I wouldn’t want him to. That doesn’t mean anything goes, or everything goes unchallenged – if it’s racist bollocks it’s not advancing the debate and demeans everyone here – and gives the lefties a little bit more ammunition to avoid the real horsesense they can’t argue with.

  67. Ironman

    Off topic but you have to read the response from Andrew Dickie to Murphy’s ‘Why engage?’ post – it really is priceless – apparently Murphy is the equivalent of the Methodist founder John Wesley. You were right – I am afraid Mark Crown will have to go some to surpass Dickie for ‘moron of the year’…

  68. In 2001 plea bargaining applied in 94% of US Federal cases; hence the UK should never extradite to the US.
    That leaves us stuck with judges who must consider only the rights of the complaining person and cannot take account of the rights of other UK citizens to protection from that person.

  69. Ian B,

    “Well Paul…”

    An excellent summary.

    Slightly disappointed that I and Paul B don’t a mention for turning up with vaguely Guardianist comments (or John 77 shoehorning in something about Gordon Brown’s raid on pensions). But essentially accurate.

  70. @ napsjam

    I know I shouldn’t…

    “You” haven’t seen worse that “I” remember.

    Let me accept that you are a regular reader: it’s still a basic logic fail! And it’s wrong, trust me you weren’t in my head. And no, I just can’t be arsed / don’t have the time.

    I thought anyway that Tim got slated by people (usually the left) all over the net, and regularly? I’ve obviously completely misunderstood if “getting Polly’s approval” was all part of the grand master plan?

    “demeans everyone”? How does it demean (in your eyes) those who disagreed with or countered what was said?

    FWIW, yes I can remember Tim suppressing comment, and quite recently – but not for using “c” or “n” type words 😉 – someone was personally advocating something specifically against another (or something like that)? Tim’s explained the concept enough times on here, ie the difference between that and his more usual “Hang the cunts, every last one of them” rhetoric.

    Whatever…

    ps.. Tim’s “victims” – is that some sort of newfangled PC leftie parlance?

  71. Well, if we don’t trust foreign legal systems- none is the same as ours, and all can thus be criticised- maybe we should say that we’ll have the trial here if the foreign government pays for it, otherwise, they can forget it.

    The problem is balance. There are aspects of the US system which can be hugely criticised- such as plea bargaining (though that seems to be creeping in here under the radar)- and others which are admirable, notably their abolition of putting defendendants in a dock (let alone, as now, isolated glass cages). People with glass docks shouldn’t throw stones, and all that.

    But nobody extradited is going to get the same trial as they would get here; so either we drop extradition, or we give them the trial they would have got here, by giving them the trial here. Kind of thing. And if the US government (or whoever) won’t pay us to do that, the case probably doesn’t matter to them enough anyway, so forget it.

  72. Or of course you could argue that anyone who chooses to live under a dodgy legal system- as this man did- was asking for it if he runs foul of it, and just automatically extradite him.

  73. And is therefore entitled to stay in the UK, without conditions, for three months under Article 6 of EU Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004.

    Why only 3 months? If he has a Dutch passport, he’s free to move to the UK indefinitely if I understand it correctly.

  74. Van _ Patten

    Andrew Dickie is a national treasure. And this time I’m so grateful he has drawn the comparison. Because we all know the great man himself is far too modest to draw it for us himself.

    On another post, isn’t the mouse and milk metaphor just like the Soviet Union and its glorious patriotic space programme. I’m surprised Mr Dickie hasn’t already drawn that to our attention.

  75. So Much for Subtlety

    Interested – “The one you are missing, not unusually.”

    The one you can explain?

    “If you’re right, and the majority of Britons agree with you, then it should be a piece of piss, even for you.”

    UKIP is getting there. Although notice the “Deep State” does not like this and is gradually moving down the Dutch path of prohibiting anyone from challenging the existing political parties.

    Ironman – “So it.would.seem the function of the State is to.do the things SMFS wants it to do, in the manner he prescribes of course.”

    I am sorry but is there anyone on the planet who thinks it is *not* the States job to protect us from enemies from within and without? Such as kiddie fiddlers? Do tell Ironman. Where are these people and what are the core functions of the state according to them?

    “Thanks for explaining; oh the things I am learning. I can now safely put aside.all that jurisprudence bollocks that had been holding me back.”

    My pleasure. I like to think my real calling was to be a teacher. It is nice to give back to the community.

    Rob – “Life sentences were brought in as an alternative to the death penalty precisely to be whole life sentences. Please don’t tell me the State lied to the public, oh no!”

    As I have said, the alternatives are death or a slap on the wrist. The same people who campaigned for an end to the death penalty said openly they planned to cap sentences at 10 years after that.

    Mr Ecks – “Who knows if he did it or not. But he does deserve a fair trial. Because if he can be railroaded so can any of us.”

    A fair trial requires him to be extradited to New York. He won’t get a trial here. He won’t get a fair one in Liberia. The sensible option is to send him to the US. But the issue is not whether he is going to be railroaded or not. The issue is whether the European Courts can decide for us that life sentences are unacceptable and force us to keep him in the UK.

    Ironman – “We can be certain they do indeed have safeguards working for them precisely because we’ve taken such care to ensue the rights of “Nigger kiddie fiddlers” are protected.”

    We had a system to make sure that there was some basis to the charges before we deported. The Europeans made us stop. On the one hand they insist on automatic deportation to any other European country and on the other hand they are now insisting we can’t deport to virtually any other country on the planet except other European countries.

    However it is absurd to think that this applies equally. The Courts would not be slow to deport White middle class businessmen. As they have done so in the past. It is perfectly possible to have a de facto two tier legal system where illegals and ethnic minorities get a vastly different system of punishments than White middle class people. As in fact we do seem to have.

    Ironman – “if we ensure the law is scrupulous here then it will be scrupulous for us should, God forbid, the time come. This is also why we need to ensure the State’s remit is clear and it is disinterested and blind in exercising it’s remit.”

    First of all, this is not an issue with the law but with a few decisions of the European courts. In direct conflict with British law. It is not scrupulous. It is the random whims of some leftist judges out of touch with the population of these isles. Second the State’s remit was clear. But they have decided instead they will make it up as they go.

    And again there is no reason whatsoever to think that any protection Qatada had will be applied to us. Very few TW regulars are wanted for terrorism even in Jordan for one thing.

    TomJ – “O rly? I take it you’ve not heard of the common law, evolving since (literally) time immemorial, The first English Parliament sat 750 years ago yesterday, so is a much more new-fangled innovation…”

    I have. I have also heard of Sir Edward Coke’s argument that the Common Law was superior to both Parliament and the King’s will. An argument made in France a little later too. Well, Coke was seen off. We decided that we did not want an Imperial Judiciary and ever since we have held that the Courts are subject to the laws of Parliament. Not human rights lawyers of course. They too want an Imperial judiciary to get what the voters won’t give them.

    It ended badly for the French because come the Revolution judges were explicitly told not to form precedent and that they were not allowed to interfere in the government. Which is why France can deport people to Algeria and we can deport them to New York.

    Matt W – “Indeterminate sentences were ruled against by the ECJ in 2012 because they were not being implemented properly.”

    Properly. What they mean is that no one should face a life term. They won’t be happy until Myra Hindley is free again. Human Rights lawyers have clearly understood that the way to a successful career is lots of rapes and murders. The more criminals out, the more crime, the more legal aid they get.

    Surreptitious Evil – “We have no jurisdiction anyway but if there is a chance he is innocent we shouldn’t just throw him to the wolves either.”

    Until the Europeans made us, and the Blair government signed that vile treaty with the US, we didn’t. A Court looked at the evidence and decided if there was a credible case to justify the extradition. No one can object to this. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the Courts, over what is clearly the manifest will of the people and the Parliament, can decide that guilt does not matter, someone ain’t going because there is a chance someone might get life. If the US asked for their equivalent of the Moors murderers back, I think most people would hope they would fry. If not, at least they would see the risk of a life term being a lesser evil than them moving in next door.

    Ian B – “Well, if we don’t trust foreign legal systems- none is the same as ours, and all can thus be criticised- maybe we should say that we’ll have the trial here if the foreign government pays for it, otherwise, they can forget it.”

    He did not commit a crime here. Or at least has not yet done so. We should not be trying people for crimes committed in another jurisdiction.

    Also I note that Ironman has been very rude because I point out that British civilisation is in so many ways superior to all the others on the planet. He thinks this is racist. But here he is insisting that Britain’s legal system is the only civilised one on the planet – or at least it is vastly more so than America’s. Consistency is such a bug bear of small minds innit?

  76. There seems to be a strand of opinion here that holds the influence of European Law is wholly unwelcome, corrupting English Law. The same strand it.seems believes the US courts can’t be trusted with extradition. It’s strange, the same strand also expressed complete contempt for English courts when discussing the Ched Evans case.

  77. @Napsjam
    Just more fuckwittery and wanktwattery, nothing added to the debate by you and no considered comment; stick your faux outrage up your arse.

    @SE et al
    I still remain confused over the issue of this bloke turfing up here and being OUR problem. I would dearly like to know how he wangled a Dutch passport when he is apparently a Liberian living in the USA with wife and family, absconds and runs to Liberia, then Europe, but ends up HERE which is apparently nothing to do with him, with a new family.
    Why not just stay in Liberia? Why not just stay in Holland?

  78. There seems to be a strand of opinion here that holds the influence of European Law is wholly unwelcome, corrupting English Law. The same strand it.seems believes the US courts can’t be trusted with extradition. It’s strange, the same strand also expressed complete contempt for English courts when discussing the Ched Evans case.

    Not inconsistent. The first is the idea that a people should live under their own laws. The second is criticism of the current state of the US legal system. The third is criticism of the current state of our own and its pollution by feminist hate laws.

    It is the case that we tend to be a bit rose-tinted about the English law. It has some very good aspects such as jury trial and various conventions like corpus delicti and jury nullification- but has never been perfect. It is at the moment in an increasingly bad state due to its infestation by progressives (it is hard to believe they found a worse DPP than Keir Starmer to follow him, but they did). But getting it to a better state won’t be helped by its pollution by the external force of European courts, and it can only be worsened by American influence (most of what is going wrong with the Western world in general is due to American generated changes, and that includes the bizarre definition of rape in the Evans case).

    So, it all ties together really.

  79. @Tim Newman

    >Why only 3 months? If he has a Dutch passport, he’s free to move to the UK indefinitely if I understand it correctly.

    Only if he finds work, studies or is of independent means. Or is the family member of an EU/EEA/Swiss citizen who does.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *