Quote Originally Posted by IAN 2411 View Post
I would like to point out that this case was never heard by any person in the British courts to see if it merited extradition.
So what was the venue for his two year fight? Our courts certainly can and do get involved in hearing extradition disputes. The US does still have to demonstrate reasonable suspicion, the UK has to demonstrate probable cause in the opposite direction. In the unlikely event he visits here, Mr Justice Cranston may be upset to learn that either he isn't a person or that you've redefined our High Court as no longer being British... His ruling actually goes into extensive detail considering various aspects of the evidence and indeed Tappin's defence to the charges. It's also relevant to note that Tappin doesn't actually dispute the evidence or his guilt, relying instead on claiming that it was entrapment on the government's part since his partner in the operation had in fact already been arrested and was cooperating with law enforcement at the time.

It is about time the UK Government stood up for the people and stick their fingers up at this one sided treaty. It seems that every person in the UK knows the treaty is flawed except the assholes in Westminster that should know.

Yes this is a rant, but it is also making a point that the UK Governments in the last 20 years have pandered to the Americans. We now have Prime Ministers that when the Americans say jump, these assholes ask, “How High.”
Actually, the UK has refused seven US extradition requests - the US has refused zero UK ones, handing over every single suspect we've asked for. Look at McKinnon again, still in the UK a decade after the crimes he admitted to committing, having dragged it through every single court on the map. If that's "pandering" in your book, what the heck does obstruction look like?