Crowdsourcing changes to UK law
Repeal the Extradition Act that enables other countries with lesser standards of justice to seek and obtain the extradition of British citizens without British judicial scrutiny.
Repeal the Extradition Act that enables other countries with lesser standards of justice to seek and obtain the extradition of British citizens without British judicial scrutiny.
What is this for, why do we need it? Abrogate from our one-sided extradition treaty with the US that not only allows them to extradite a UK citizen on a lower evidence threshold than for the UK to extradite from the US but which also the US have not even ratified their side!
What is this for, why do we need it? Abrogate from our one-sided extradition treaty with the US that not only allows them to extradite a UK citizen on a lower evidence threshold than for the UK to extradite from the US but which also the US have not even ratified their side!
This extradition treaty with the U.S.A. is a totally inequable and iniquitous piece of legislation which appears to be solely designed for the benefit of the US, in part to carry out vendettas against British nationals who have offended the US in some way(in some cases minor offences). This appears to be particularly offensive in the case of a British national who has caused the US Defence department embarrassment. This would appear to be a one-sided arrangement and as such should be scrapped.
This extradition treaty with the U.S.A. is a totally inequable and iniquitous piece of legislation which appears to be solely designed for the benefit of the US, in part to carry out vendettas against British nationals who have offended the US in some way(in some cases minor offences). This appears to be particularly offensive in the case of a British national who has caused the US Defence department embarrassment. This would appear to be a one-sided arrangement and as such should be scrapped.
Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.
Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.
Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.
Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.
Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water. But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.
Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.
Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.
Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.
Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.
Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water. But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.
The Blair created Extradition Treaty with the US, which was agreed and rubber stamped without the executives approval, needs to be repealed. It needs to be repealed because the law does not allow for the proper presentation of evidence by the United States government in a case in which an individual is being sought after for extradition by the US government. The US government has been given the right to extradite a UK citizen without having to present a case to a sovereign British court. This is an infringement of our sovereignty and such a treaty is a breach of human rights and contrary to European as well as British law. The legitimacy of this law is in doubt.
The Blair created Extradition Treaty with the US, which was agreed and rubber stamped without the executives approval, needs to be repealed. It needs to be repealed because the law does not allow for the proper presentation of evidence by the United States government in a case in which an individual is being sought after for extradition by the US government. The US government has been given the right to extradite a UK citizen without having to present a case to a sovereign British court. This is an infringement of our sovereignty and such a treaty is a breach of human rights and contrary to European as well as British law. The legitimacy of this law is in doubt.
When in opposition both Conservative and Lib Dem MPs tried on two separate occasions to make amendments to the Extradition Act which would have providede greater protections for UK citizens against rank injustice. The first idea was to give the presumption of a UK trial to any defendant, which is consistent with the practical approach of all of our major extradition partners, and the terms of the European Convention on Extradition, to which the UK is already a signatory. The second idea was to require that evidence be submitted and tested in the extradition hearings, to prevent extradition on demand. Over the past two years, the system has become almost overwhelmed with trivial cases brought by nations such as Poland under the eurowarrant system for alegations such as theft of a hairbrush. It is costly to the taxpayer, and does not serve the interests of justice. At the same time, British citizens are being extradited to foreign countries, without evidence, and in some cases without charges even having been brought. This is fundamentally injust, and flies directly in the face of the presumption of innocence, and habeas corpus. The first duty of any Government is the protection of its own citizens. Seemingly the previous British Government was alone in not recognising this. Time to put it right.
When in opposition both Conservative and Lib Dem MPs tried on two separate occasions to make amendments to the Extradition Act which would have providede greater protections for UK citizens against rank injustice. The first idea was to give the presumption of a UK trial to any defendant, which is consistent with the practical approach of all of our major extradition partners, and the terms of the European Convention on Extradition, to which the UK is already a signatory. The second idea was to require that evidence be submitted and tested in the extradition hearings, to prevent extradition on demand. Over the past two years, the system has become almost overwhelmed with trivial cases brought by nations such as Poland under the eurowarrant system for alegations such as theft of a hairbrush. It is costly to the taxpayer, and does not serve the interests of justice. At the same time, British citizens are being extradited to foreign countries, without evidence, and in some cases without charges even having been brought. This is fundamentally injust, and flies directly in the face of the presumption of innocence, and habeas corpus. The first duty of any Government is the protection of its own citizens. Seemingly the previous British Government was alone in not recognising this. Time to put it right.
Repeal the Extradition Treaty with the USA signed under the Extradition Act 2003.
Repeal the Extradition Treaty with the USA signed under the Extradition Act 2003.
UK citizens accused of a crime in the UK against a UK victim should be tried in the UK in front of a jury of their peers. It is wrong to send UK citizens for trial abroad where they have no access to families, lawyers or the documents needed for a proper defence. It is wrong that US citizens have greater protection against extradition than UK citizens and it is disgraceful that the previous government signed a treaty which the USA has so far failed to reciprocate.
UK citizens accused of a crime in the UK against a UK victim should be tried in the UK in front of a jury of their peers. It is wrong to send UK citizens for trial abroad where they have no access to families, lawyers or the documents needed for a proper defence. It is wrong that US citizens have greater protection against extradition than UK citizens and it is disgraceful that the previous government signed a treaty which the USA has so far failed to reciprocate.
We need to cancell the unequal extradition treaty that the previous government entered into with the US and which the US Congress refused to ratify as their view was that it was 'unfair' to US citizens. It was supposed to be for terrorist suspects but is being used to persecute UK citizens unfairly.
We need to cancell the unequal extradition treaty that the previous government entered into with the US and which the US Congress refused to ratify as their view was that it was 'unfair' to US citizens. It was supposed to be for terrorist suspects but is being used to persecute UK citizens unfairly.
Amend the Extradition Act 2003 so that a UK court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out before granting a request that a UK citizen be extradited.
Amend the Extradition Act 2003 so that a UK court must be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out before granting a request that a UK citizen be extradited.
When in opposition both Conservative and Lib Dem MPs tried on two separate occasions to make amendments to the Extradition Act which would have providede greater protections for UK citizens against rank injustice. The first idea was to give the presumption of a UK trial to any defendant, which is consistent with the practical approach of all of our major extradition partners, and the terms of the European Convention on Extradition, to which the UK is already a signatory. The second idea was to require that evidence be submitted and tested in the extradition hearings, to prevent extradition on demand. Over the past two years, the system has become almost overwhelmed with trivial cases brought by nations such as Poland under the eurowarrant system for alegations such as theft of a hairbrush. It is costly to the taxpayer, and does not serve the interests of justice. At the same time, British citizens are being extradited to foreign countries, without evidence, and in some cases without charges even having been brought. This is fundamentally injust, and flies directly in the face of the presumption of innocence, and habeas corpus. The first duty of any Government is the protection of its own citizens. Seemingly the previous British Government was alone in not recognising this. Time to put it right.
When in opposition both Conservative and Lib Dem MPs tried on two separate occasions to make amendments to the Extradition Act which would have providede greater protections for UK citizens against rank injustice. The first idea was to give the presumption of a UK trial to any defendant, which is consistent with the practical approach of all of our major extradition partners, and the terms of the European Convention on Extradition, to which the UK is already a signatory. The second idea was to require that evidence be submitted and tested in the extradition hearings, to prevent extradition on demand. Over the past two years, the system has become almost overwhelmed with trivial cases brought by nations such as Poland under the eurowarrant system for alegations such as theft of a hairbrush. It is costly to the taxpayer, and does not serve the interests of justice. At the same time, British citizens are being extradited to foreign countries, without evidence, and in some cases without charges even having been brought. This is fundamentally injust, and flies directly in the face of the presumption of innocence, and habeas corpus. The first duty of any Government is the protection of its own citizens. Seemingly the previous British Government was alone in not recognising this. Time to put it right.
Remove the current agreement that allows easy extradition of UK citizens to the US.
Remove the current agreement that allows easy extradition of UK citizens to the US.
A UK trial for Gary McKinnon. Background: http://freegary.org.uk/
A UK trial for Gary McKinnon. Background: http://freegary.org.uk/
"Non-reciprocal" extradition agreement between the UK & the US.
Why should we send our citizens to the US for trial when the "crime" was supposedly committed in the UK ? The United States would never reiprocate for a similar event . If there are no charges to be brought here than how can we possibly extradite ?
"Non-reciprocal" extradition agreement between the UK & the US.
Why should we send our citizens to the US for trial when the "crime" was supposedly committed in the UK ? The United States would never reiprocate for a similar event . If there are no charges to be brought here than how can we possibly extradite ?
1. The extradition treaty with the USA is inequitable, being grossly in favour of the USA. Despite the breathy TV portrayals, the operation of justice there is not always as democratic, rational and timely as it should be. The treaty should be seriously amended or scrapped.
2. Similarly the law regarding arrest warrants and extradition within the European Union is far from satisfactory, as several reacen cases have shown. It is not acceptable that people can be sent off merely at the request of another country, i.e. without it being examined by a senior court. Justice systems in a number of EU countries are incompetent, obscurantist, slow (!!!) or capricious at best and corrupt, inhuman, vicious, intolerably slow (!!!) at worst.
This law must be either modified to increase safeguards, otherwise it must be ignored. (As indeed many EU administrations ignore rules that do not suit them …).
3. The whole panoply of restrictions on personal liberty which have burgeoned in recent years should be reviewed and trimmed to a minimum.
Starting with the monumental number of "Brave New World" surveillance cameras ; the sneaky powers given to and misused by local authorities.
They say the identity card is to be abandoned? Hopefully this is so. I never understood the arguments about how they would control terrorists, crime and immigration : In the first place they were scheduled to take ten years (!!!) to come into full operation, i.e. plenty of time for any number of terrorist actions and immigrant infiltrations.
Secondly the kind of people targeted would have ways to fake the things or otherwise avoid them.
Thirdly, given Whitehall's uninspiring experience with introducing computer systems, the whole exercise was bound to be a very expensive, many times budget, failure. (For this kind of thing they should seriously look at other countries' successful computerisations.
Fourthly, the proposal was to charge high prices for cards, as for passports. An OBLIGATORY document ought not to be charged for.
3A. The law relating to "protection of criminals" should be reviewed to give more strength to individuals who suffer or who resist their depredations. (e.g. If a trespassing burglar falls into a hole or swimming pool or otherwise injures himself, why on earth should he have anyone else to blame but himself?
In this context it is not good enough to say only the police should take action ; manifestly the police are unable (sometimes unwilling) to give a timely response on many occasions ; especially in country areas.
4. Very serious consideration must be given to solving the serious social and personal problems associated with the multiplicity of ethnic societies now established in Britain. Existing legislation is seemingly not sufficient to ensure that traditional freedoms remain available under pressure from communal "situations". Inter alia, the following infringements of personal liberty was cited to me by my cousin; IF VERIFIABLE this sort of thing is unacceptable :-
"…. In Britain, they succeeded in forcing an English woman to remove from her front windowsill her collection of china and glass pig ornaments (which offended them) and there have been various cases of Muslim checkout cashiers refusing to deal with people wishing to buy alcohol at supermarkets….."
4a As a minimum all newcomers must feel obliged to follow the laws and customs of the country they come to – usually voluntarily. The Archbishop is dead wrong to give authority to Shari'a law for instance (Unless is meant only voluntary, truly voluntary, not pressured, acceptance of only those aspects which are themselves not contrary to normal law).
4b In particular firm protection and education must be given concerning the rights of women and young persons in all aspects, and especially in regard to education, the absolute prohibition of forced marriages, female genital mutilation and other such medieval practices. This requires education obviously but also severe penalties ; with no acceptance of excuses about traditional cultural practices
4c All schools outside the system of state schools must have the obligation to concentrate on what is regarded as the normal educational curriculum and anything else to be an addition, possibly in extra hours. Legitimate instruction in religious knowledge is one thing, but, dangerous propaganda, the teaching of dubious practices and ideas (eg relating to terrorist activity or deprecation of "infidels"), etc. must be prohibited.
All to be controlled by rigorous registration and inspection.
The establishment of Madrassa type institutions must be prohibited.
4d The question of inappropriate clothing is easily dealt with by a simple law (for once acceptably limiting personal freedom) stating that in public or at work (i.e effectively anywhere outside the home) no one may cover or hide their faces or heads in any way that prevents their being identified.
Only exceptions : e.g. eye protection while travelling on a motor bike ; police or other official security personnel while engaged on operations which could expose them to criminal reprisal. Also, possibly, on medical grounds : bandaged wounds for example. And maybe on special occasions, such as carnival parades etc.
4e Principle of reciprocity. The establishment of places of religious worship and instruction should not in principle be allowed when a similar right does not exist for other faiths in the land or lands being the origin of those wishing to found, fund or staff the establishment. All governors and staff of such institutions must speak English and be citizens of the UK or have right of residence. The terms of foundation and use must conform to acceptable standards for such establishments which must be subject to registration and inspection to ensure that only acceptable activities take place there.
4f The costs of registration, regulation, inspection and control of such establishments per 4c and 4e to be defrayed by fees and annual licensing charges.
4g It is not unreasonable that in the name of equal treatment all existing institutions should also conform to such regulations
4h It goes without saying that a great deal of thought and effort will be needed to establish, so late after the fact, such a system of education, regulation and inspection. Failure to do so will just lead eventually to serious consequences. The existence of groups in society who consciously maintain themselves alien, even contemptuous of or opposed to it, is something reasonably to be considered beyond the historical, traditional, liberal tolerance of the country.
1. The extradition treaty with the USA is inequitable, being grossly in favour of the USA. Despite the breathy TV portrayals, the operation of justice there is not always as democratic, rational and timely as it should be. The treaty should be seriously amended or scrapped.
2. Similarly the law regarding arrest warrants and extradition within the European Union is far from satisfactory, as several reacen cases have shown. It is not acceptable that people can be sent off merely at the request of another country, i.e. without it being examined by a senior court. Justice systems in a number of EU countries are incompetent, obscurantist, slow (!!!) or capricious at best and corrupt, inhuman, vicious, intolerably slow (!!!) at worst.
This law must be either modified to increase safeguards, otherwise it must be ignored. (As indeed many EU administrations ignore rules that do not suit them …).
3. The whole panoply of restrictions on personal liberty which have burgeoned in recent years should be reviewed and trimmed to a minimum.
Starting with the monumental number of "Brave New World" surveillance cameras ; the sneaky powers given to and misused by local authorities.
They say the identity card is to be abandoned? Hopefully this is so. I never understood the arguments about how they would control terrorists, crime and immigration : In the first place they were scheduled to take ten years (!!!) to come into full operation, i.e. plenty of time for any number of terrorist actions and immigrant infiltrations.
Secondly the kind of people targeted would have ways to fake the things or otherwise avoid them.
Thirdly, given Whitehall's uninspiring experience with introducing computer systems, the whole exercise was bound to be a very expensive, many times budget, failure. (For this kind of thing they should seriously look at other countries' successful computerisations.
Fourthly, the proposal was to charge high prices for cards, as for passports. An OBLIGATORY document ought not to be charged for.
3A. The law relating to "protection of criminals" should be reviewed to give more strength to individuals who suffer or who resist their depredations. (e.g. If a trespassing burglar falls into a hole or swimming pool or otherwise injures himself, why on earth should he have anyone else to blame but himself?
In this context it is not good enough to say only the police should take action ; manifestly the police are unable (sometimes unwilling) to give a timely response on many occasions ; especially in country areas.
4. Very serious consideration must be given to solving the serious social and personal problems associated with the multiplicity of ethnic societies now established in Britain. Existing legislation is seemingly not sufficient to ensure that traditional freedoms remain available under pressure from communal "situations". Inter alia, the following infringements of personal liberty was cited to me by my cousin; IF VERIFIABLE this sort of thing is unacceptable :-
"…. In Britain, they succeeded in forcing an English woman to remove from her front windowsill her collection of china and glass pig ornaments (which offended them) and there have been various cases of Muslim checkout cashiers refusing to deal with people wishing to buy alcohol at supermarkets….."
4a As a minimum all newcomers must feel obliged to follow the laws and customs of the country they come to – usually voluntarily. The Archbishop is dead wrong to give authority to Shari'a law for instance (Unless is meant only voluntary, truly voluntary, not pressured, acceptance of only those aspects which are themselves not contrary to normal law).
4b In particular firm protection and education must be given concerning the rights of women and young persons in all aspects, and especially in regard to education, the absolute prohibition of forced marriages, female genital mutilation and other such medieval practices. This requires education obviously but also severe penalties ; with no acceptance of excuses about traditional cultural practices
4c All schools outside the system of state schools must have the obligation to concentrate on what is regarded as the normal educational curriculum and anything else to be an addition, possibly in extra hours. Legitimate instruction in religious knowledge is one thing, but, dangerous propaganda, the teaching of dubious practices and ideas (eg relating to terrorist activity or deprecation of "infidels"), etc. must be prohibited.
All to be controlled by rigorous registration and inspection.
The establishment of Madrassa type institutions must be prohibited.
4d The question of inappropriate clothing is easily dealt with by a simple law (for once acceptably limiting personal freedom) stating that in public or at work (i.e effectively anywhere outside the home) no one may cover or hide their faces or heads in any way that prevents their being identified.
Only exceptions : e.g. eye protection while travelling on a motor bike ; police or other official security personnel while engaged on operations which could expose them to criminal reprisal. Also, possibly, on medical grounds : bandaged wounds for example. And maybe on special occasions, such as carnival parades etc.
4e Principle of reciprocity. The establishment of places of religious worship and instruction should not in principle be allowed when a similar right does not exist for other faiths in the land or lands being the origin of those wishing to found, fund or staff the establishment. All governors and staff of such institutions must speak English and be citizens of the UK or have right of residence. The terms of foundation and use must conform to acceptable standards for such establishments which must be subject to registration and inspection to ensure that only acceptable activities take place there.
4f The costs of registration, regulation, inspection and control of such establishments per 4c and 4e to be defrayed by fees and annual licensing charges.
4g It is not unreasonable that in the name of equal treatment all existing institutions should also conform to such regulations
4h It goes without saying that a great deal of thought and effort will be needed to establish, so late after the fact, such a system of education, regulation and inspection. Failure to do so will just lead eventually to serious consequences. The existence of groups in society who consciously maintain themselves alien, even contemptuous of or opposed to it, is something reasonably to be considered beyond the historical, traditional, liberal tolerance of the country.
The UK/US Extradition Treaty was endorsed by the now disgraced Baroness Scotland, who assured US Senators that the UK would not seek extradition of IRA suspects. It was signed in secret under Queen's Prerogative (despite this being denounced as an anathema to democracy by Jack Straw), bypassing due Parliamentary process, and obliging the UK to pass the Extradition Act (2003) which removes all safeguards and protections from UK citizens under the law.
The treaty, and the Act must be revoked, as per the Coalition's pre-election promises and commitment stated in the Manifesto, to protect the rights and liberties of UK citizens.
All extraditions currently pending under the retrospective application of this law (ie for alleged crimes prior to 2005 when the Act was adopted into law) must also be pronounced null and void, since the ECHR (Article 7 of HRA) clearly and specifically prohibits retrospective application of law. Consequently, all such pending extraditions are automatically in violation of the ECHR, and must be halted for this reason alone.
The UK/US Extradition Treaty was endorsed by the now disgraced Baroness Scotland, who assured US Senators that the UK would not seek extradition of IRA suspects. It was signed in secret under Queen's Prerogative (despite this being denounced as an anathema to democracy by Jack Straw), bypassing due Parliamentary process, and obliging the UK to pass the Extradition Act (2003) which removes all safeguards and protections from UK citizens under the law.
The treaty, and the Act must be revoked, as per the Coalition's pre-election promises and commitment stated in the Manifesto, to protect the rights and liberties of UK citizens.
All extraditions currently pending under the retrospective application of this law (ie for alleged crimes prior to 2005 when the Act was adopted into law) must also be pronounced null and void, since the ECHR (Article 7 of HRA) clearly and specifically prohibits retrospective application of law. Consequently, all such pending extraditions are automatically in violation of the ECHR, and must be halted for this reason alone.
I have a very comon name and in certain countries, My passport is always queried. Nothing untoward has actually happened, but it does worry me that I can be extradited from the UK without this being tested in the UK Courts. We have had several cases recently, where people have or are being extrradited on the flimsiest of evidence, that all my legal friends assure me would be thrown out in any UK Court. In some cases these are for offences that don't exist in the UK.
I have a very comon name and in certain countries, My passport is always queried. Nothing untoward has actually happened, but it does worry me that I can be extradited from the UK without this being tested in the UK Courts. We have had several cases recently, where people have or are being extrradited on the flimsiest of evidence, that all my legal friends assure me would be thrown out in any UK Court. In some cases these are for offences that don't exist in the UK.
The UK/US extradition treaty agreed by the last government is unfair to UK citizens. While it permits the US authorities to extradite UK citizens for crines against US law allegedly committed in the UK, no reciprocal right exists. Morevover, the US authorities are subject to a lesser burden of proof in extradition requests than the level expected of the UK authorities.
The UK/US extradition treaty agreed by the last government is unfair to UK citizens. While it permits the US authorities to extradite UK citizens for crines against US law allegedly committed in the UK, no reciprocal right exists. Morevover, the US authorities are subject to a lesser burden of proof in extradition requests than the level expected of the UK authorities.
the law allows extradition of UK citizens to the US without any strong examination of the case facing the accused. once in the US, there is little funding for the suspects lawyers to prepare the suspects case.
the law allows extradition of UK citizens to the US without any strong examination of the case facing the accused. once in the US, there is little funding for the suspects lawyers to prepare the suspects case.
Prevent the use of Anti Terrorism Extradition laws in non terrorism related cases, such that, for example, the USA cannot use terrorism extradition laws to pursue alledged commercial criminals.
Prevent the use of Anti Terrorism Extradition laws in non terrorism related cases, such that, for example, the USA cannot use terrorism extradition laws to pursue alledged commercial criminals.
The current UK-US extradition treaty was supposed to make it easier to extradite terrorism suspects. Instead the USA has used it to extradite British citizens for civil crimes.
The current UK-US extradition treaty was supposed to make it easier to extradite terrorism suspects. Instead the USA has used it to extradite British citizens for civil crimes.
to amend the one sided extradition treaty,with the USA,so as to keep safe vulnerable UK citizens , and for the treaty to do the job it was set out for and that is to deal with terrorists not civil matters.
to amend the one sided extradition treaty,with the USA,so as to keep safe vulnerable UK citizens , and for the treaty to do the job it was set out for and that is to deal with terrorists not civil matters.