LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshe broke the law in the uk, the judge made this perfectly ****ing clearOriginally Posted by cat-the-fifth
argh!
he broke the law in the uk, the judge made this perfectly ****ing clear
argh!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Please PLEASE read this people:
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Then he should be tried under UK laws.
How many US citizens who break US laws are extradited to the UK?
Arghh!
BTW - WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK U ARE TO START SWEARING AT ME??
Read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16041824
"Extradition from the US to the UK
When the UK sends an extradition request to the US, it is received by the US State Department via the British Embassy in Washington.
A State Department lawyer looks at the request and assesses whether it conforms to the 2003 Treaty that underpins extradition between the two states.
A critical test, set out in the treaty is that the British request must include "such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested."
This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK.
The Department of Justice also examines whether there is "probable cause" to justify the request.
This test comes from the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution which states that people cannot be arrested unless the authorities have "probable cause" for their action.
So, once a suspect has been arrested, they can challenge the lawfulness of the request.
If the request is ruled lawful, the Secretary of State takes the final decision after considering human rights issues - such as whether the suspect could be denied a fair trial or face inhumane treatment.
The Home Office's massive review of extradition says that the US has not refused any extradition requests since the treaty came into force.
Extradition from the UK to US
The process begins when a US prosecutor obtains an arrest warrant with the approval of the domestic courts.
In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service acts on behalf of the US in taking the case through the courts.
Once the police have arrested the suspect, the courts must decide whether or not the US has met the tests required for an extradition to take place. This is a fairly technical hearing in which the lawfulness of the request is examined.
The US does not need to provide all the evidence in a case, as if the allegations were being tested in a full trial by British judges.
What this comes down to is proving to the courts that there is reasonable suspicion - essentially the hurdle police need to jump to justify an arrest - but obviously short of what is necessary to get a conviction.
Are the tests the same?
The 2003 Act effectively made it easier for the US to seek the extradition of someone from the UK because the US would no longer need to provide a "prima facie" case to British courts - proving your case on the face of available evidence.
Campaigners say this is unjust because someone can be extradited without the case being properly tested. But supporters of the treaty and the related British 2003 Act argue that the removal of the prima facie test simply means that suspects face the same broad test in each country.
The Home Office's extradition review argued that there was no real difference between the US tests of "probable cause" and the introduction of "reasonable suspicion".
The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.
But critics say that's a red herring. Campaign group Friends Extradited says the real issue of imbalance is that while the US courts don't allow an extradition until a judge has examined the quality of the evidence, because of the constitutional rights of the suspect, a British judge is merely examining the quality of the application - not the case the individual faces on arrival in the US.
Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its June 2011 report on extradition that the burden of proof for extradition should be increased - but the US argues that that it cannot ask the UK to hand over a suspect unless its request has already met the same test in its own courts. "
No.
I'm not the one spouting stuff that is completely wrong.
I've also said I think the extradition treaty is a terrible deal for us.
But in this case, the dude broke UK law. Get over it, pirate your TV shows via one of the many other channels and don't try to legitamise this guy. He built a very profitable business on piracy, a judge ruled that he broke UK law, and now he is going to have a big bill.
tl;dr Complain as much as you like about extradition laws, but he broke UK law.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Firstly - if he has broken UK law then that's his issue. I was not sure he had and TBH I don't torrent so I would not know.
Secondly - if he has broken UK law then he is subject to a UK trial IMHO. Of course you might think US law has precidence over UK law but I won't agree with you there.
Thirdly - the law has been used against people who have NOT done a crime in the UK. At least this is what I have gathered. Perhaps there is evidence otherwise?
Fourthly - you just don't get it though. He does need to have broken any law in this country does he? But hey you will start swearing at me, and try shouting
Fifthly - No,I don't like the extradition law - don't think swearing at me we change that fact or will try to scare me into not saying I don't like it.
Moreover - I don't care whatever the reason, there is no excuse to start swearing at people and trying to shout them out to say YOU are right.
I DON'T DO THAT TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 17-01-2012 at 09:15 PM.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but who would enforce the extradition?
Under UK law he is innocent, or at least until proven guilty by Judge and Jury so I can't see how he could be lawfully detained and shipped off to the US.
Attempting extradition must infringe on his citizen's rights as no offence has been committed. Under UK law(as far as I understand it) this would amount to false imprisonment as no crime has been committed.
This is an outrageous abuse of power and the whole thing just makes a mockery of the UK. What's the point of UK citizenship if foreign courts have the power to over rule other countries laws. Especially over something so trivial as what for me amount to nothing more than a*Private* infringement of copyright. If this is allowed to happen and enforced by UK Police then George W Bush and everyone who back him should be serving life in the Hague. Or have been extradited to any number of countries for trial and hanging.
I bet if the charge was running a paedophile site with links available to the US judge would not bat an eyelid.
aidanjt (17-01-2012),CAT-THE-FIFTH (17-01-2012)
In the judge's "opinion", the wording of 2A suggests otherwise.
lold hard, thanks for the read guys!
Ok the gist of this really is that IF he has has a case to answer determined by a UK judge then he should stand trial in the UK ... If he hasn't then under no circumstances should he be handed over to the USA as he has done nothing wrong as far as we are concerned - end of story.
Pretty simple I think ...
Since he clearly had reason to believe that he was infringing copyright (based on the FAQ example earlier), and he was running a business (to the tune of >£100,000/annum salary), and he communicated [the location of] the work to the public, he has committed a crime under UK law (looking at you, Cat-The-Fifth), and based on the criteria for extradition that Saracen posted earlier, which requires the defendant to have committed a crime under UK law, worthy of not less than 12 months' imprisonment, he is eligible for extradition. And that same criteria certainly does not apply to anyone advocating wearing of stripy trousers (or even minor offences in UK law) - 12 months is a long time in prison.
And as for this rubbish:
It patently doesn't apply just fine, based on "not doing anything unethical". What he did was clearly unethical by most people's standards (can't speak for yourself, obviously).
And, by the way, just because the CPS have decided it is not worth our (the taxpayer's) money to prosecute doesn't mean the US are unable to prosecute. The "US have priority to prosecute" rubbish simply doesn't apply here because the CPS does not intend to prosecute. Which is not the same thing as saying he did not commit a crime under UK law.
If its not illegal here then why should anything happen to him. It's silly.
Someone hasn't been reading the thread...
Remember chaps - keep it civil. Debate the point, don't attack the person...
CAT-THE-FIFTH (17-01-2012)
/pram
/dummy out
/Zak wipes it clean... and sticks it, forceably, in the nearest of Animus' orrifices, which might not have teeth it in
CAT really didn't need this... pls hold it together chap.
fankooooooo
xxx kissy kiss xxxxx
CAT-THE-FIFTH (17-01-2012)
I'm sorry it was out of line but just look.
We've got all these people saying he didn't break the law!?
How do they get to that conclusion, a judge thinks he has broken UK law....
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
CAT-THE-FIFTH (17-01-2012),Zak33 (17-01-2012)
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
