So I was reading this today
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...yer-begins-now
Its saying that now a Hacker who was found to be mentally unstable enough to coupe with extradition to the US for his crimes (which he admits) will not go ahead. It's unclear when he will be prosecuted in the UK for it.
The article starts talking about Richard O'Dwyer, who ran a website which openly if not exclusively shared links to illegal content. The journalist there has the idea that he hasn't committed a crime under UK law, well if that is the case then he won't be extradited, as he has to be found guilty under UK law too.
But also, why because someone has had their extradition veto'd on the grounds of mental health and his personal welfare, someone who isn't afflicted with these illnesses, who isn't even been extradited for a similar crime, have any effect on it.
So the question I have is why to people try and draw parallels between such different things, and just as why in the whole Julian Assange thing, is there so much down right falsehoods been published all over the place.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote

