Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I am appalled at the one sided nature of the present UK - US extradition laws. My very good friend Chris Tappin, a 65 year old, Golf Club Chairman and family man, with 2 grand children, is to all intents, a pillar of society. His lovely wife and 2 beautiful children are about to be cast into a nightmare that we can only attempt to imagine. Having run a business exporting goods accross the world, Chris has found himself in the middle of a sting, instigated by the CIA, who in an undercover operation, have uncovered that battery parts intended for Holland, were subsequently, and without Chris's knowledge, forwarded to Iran, where they have been used in the assembly of arms. Chris has been well and truly used as a scapegoat and having lost his final appeal to the European High Court, now faces extradition, un-contested by the UK government, to a US prison to stand trial. This gentle man will be manacled upon arrival and held at a high security prison in Texas until he agrees to plea bargain for his freedom. Should he stick to his innocent plea, he will face up to 35 years in prison. I am anxious to know your thoughts on the comparison between Chris and Abu Quatada, the terrorist cleric, who has yesterday, won the right to freedom in the UK, as extradition would not allow him to have a 'fair trial!
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/21971-uk-us-extradition-treaty/
Share on other sites

The US legal system endorses the legality of this kind of entrapment operation. I personally know several other non-US citizens that have become entangled in this sort of issue. US prosecutors are totally and utterly ruthless about these types of offences. Alas, there's not much anyone can do for him now.


I think this is an interesting aspect of Tappin's case - the link at the end says it all, imho:


The Raytheon MIM-23 Hawk is a U.S. medium range surface-to-air missile. The Hawk was initially designed to destroy aircraft and was later adapted to destroy other missiles in flight. The missile entered service in 1960, and a program of extensive upgrades has kept it from becoming obsolete. It was superseded by the MIM-104 Patriot in United States Army service by 1994. It was finally phased out of U.S. service in 2002, the last users, the U.S. Marine Corps replacing it with the man-portable infrared-guided visual range FIM-92 Stinger. The missile was also produced outside the US in Western Europe, Japan and Iran (See http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1059.html).

Source Wiki: MIM-23 Hawk

Though I have a great deal of sympathy with anyone who has friends or family facing extradition to a foreign country, last year an independent review of the UK's extradition arrangements found no evidence that the UK/US arrangement was imbalanced. You can download the full report here.


The United States/United Kingdom Treaty23



1.20 We have concluded that the United States/United Kingdom Treaty does not operate in

an unbalanced manner. The United States and the United Kingdom have similar but

different legal systems. In the United States the Fourth Amendment to the

Constitution ensures that arrest may only lawfully take place if the probable cause test

is satisfied: in the United Kingdom the test is reasonable suspicion. In each case it is

necessary to demonstrate to a judge an objective basis for the arrest.


1.21 In our opinion, there is no significant difference between the probable cause test and

the reasonable suspicion test.


1.22 In the case of extradition requests submitted by the United States to the United

Kingdom, the information within the request will satisfy both the probable cause and

the reasonable suspicion tests.


1.23 In the case of extradition requests submitted by the United Kingdom to the United

States the request will contain information to satisfy the probable cause test.


1.24 There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the

United States.

Everything about this is unlikely.


The post was written by a PR team, the prose is a carefully articulated emotional manipulation 'this gentle man will be manacled on arrival'. The language is unusual and deliberately provocative.


A small businessman, if he claims to be that, will always know who is signing the cheques. Things don't get 'diverted'. They get bought and sold on. If that was the case he wouldn't be subject to a sting, it wouldn't be necessary.


It's entirely possible Nick, that you believe what you're saying (even though it's a copy amd paste job), but you're either a sucker yourself, or you're trying to sucker this forum.


None of this is very attractive.


BTW, I'm not a fan of either the US or extradition, so steer clear of abuse on that level. ;-)

I recall reading an article that followed up previous lost extraditions that used claims of orange jump suits and manacles, and most were actually granted bail. In a couple of cases they were under house arrest, though paid for by the state and in nice hotels. As these were white collar crimes they all went to low security prisons.

Noone was forced to don either of the above.


ACtually I guess a murderer might, but they probably don't have campaigns trying to elicit sympathy for them.


Again I sympathise, especially in cases where what has been done simply isnt a crime in this country (providing miltary products to Iran would be here too), but nothings going to be achieved using such hyperbole however well intentioned.


*edited after a bit of a ponder (and his orchestra)*

Well Huguenot. I bow to your greater knowledge of the US legal system. I am simply a very good friend of Chris Tappin from my time spent living next door to him in Kent. He is a 'gentle man' and his wife, the former captain of Kent Ladies Golf, is a gentle woman. They are dear friends of mine and dreading the fact that they may never get to spend quality time in the UK during their retirement, together. I suggest that before commenting (negatively) on all the posts on the EDF, you furnish yourself with facts of the cases you are commenting on. My initial comments may have sounded like a 'cut and paste' job but I am actually quite eloquent and more than capable of posting a sensible, balanced piece, without having to crib it! Chris's mistake, having been in the business for 35 years, was to trust the clients he was dealing with. In this instance the 'sting' being operated by the US resulted in dreadful consequences for Chris and his family. The use of manacles and jumpsuits is sadly part of the 'shock treatment' used on all extradited prisoners in the state of Texas, where Chris will be held. Having spent the last two years living in Naples Florida, these cases are often reported and images shown around the US. Not hyperbole. just facts!

'It is much easier to extradite people from the UK than the US because the US does not need to present evidence to a British court to request extradition.


Conversely, the UK must provide "sufficient evidence to establish probable cause" in order to secure the extradition of an American citizen.


DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO ME GUYS!!...

@ Nick1962


Life is unfair on many, many levels.


Your friend will negotiate a plea bargain. He will be sentenced to two or three years (like his co-defendants but even less if he agrees to put someone else in the frame). After a few months he'll apply to serve the rest of his sentence in the UK. The application will be granted. A short while later (if he behaves himself) the UK prison service will release him on parole. He is likely to be out within a year or two at most - if he works the system.


By the way, the manacles and orange jump suits are just for show - US law enforcement agencies think perp walks act as a deterrent.

Yes the US Extradition Treaty is unfair and unbalanced the lack of prima facie needed is above and beyond a joke.


And with the stealth signing of the S. 1867: National Defense Authorization Act it is only going to get worst. Signed in to law 31st December 2011

The US Justice Department and State Department got fed-up waiting for extradition and extraordinary rendition process to work, so they now have NDAA.

And if you think this does not effect the UK and other countries, take a look at the act.


CIA and NSA have a long history of sting operations that pull in bystanders.

I would not bet on FOIA request for defense - as this will be blocked by patriot act or end up on the Q drive.

The results of the independent review have been questions - to the extent that Nick Clegg has called for a second review, and a number of MPs (from all parties) are continuing to campaign for a change in the treaty. In practice vastly more UK citizens have been extradited to the US than vice versa - the failure to renegotiate the treaty - which was a manifesto pledge - is a significant black mark against the government.

"In practice vastly more UK citizens have been extradited to the US than vice versa"


I'd be interested to see the raw numbers on this. This would suggest that uk citizens are more likely to commit crimes against/in/contrary to the US than vice versa, which would be common sense really given our more cosmopolitan outlook and their more parochial, leave alone the population difference.


Also the UK has turned down a number of US requests under the treaty, the US has yet to turn down a single UK request in the other direction.


Of course I'm for a balanced treaty, but this topic always seems to involve a hysterical pitch out of all proportion to the actual practical applications in the real world.

"In practice vastly more UK citizens have been extradited to the US than vice versa"


Do you mean this precisely as you've written it, or are you referring to the total number of people extradited to the USA from the UK and vice versa? The majority of people we extradite from the US are UK citizens. Either way I think the term "vastly more" is inappropriate given the numbers we are talking about.


The total number extradited to the US is less than double the number coming the other way. Given relative population sizes you can hardly say that constitutes imbalance.



"the lack of prima facie needed is above and beyond a joke."


Care to be more specific? The removal of the need for prima facie evidence is said to have removed an imbalance in the opposite direction. The same rules apply to New Zealand, Australia and Canada, are you suggesting the US is less democratic or trustworthy than them?

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> "the lack of prima facie needed is above and

> beyond a joke."

>

> Care to be more specific? The removal of the need

> for prima facie evidence is said to have removed

> an imbalance in the opposite direction. The same

> rules apply to New Zealand, Australia and Canada,

> are you suggesting the US is less democratic or

> trustworthy than them?


Unfortunately the US is no longer a democracy it has become a cleptocracy


As for the US being trustworthy, I would refer you to;


Patriot Act (H.R. 3162 )

Homeland Security Act (H.R. 5005)

National Defense Authorization Act (S.1867)

(Proposed) The Enemy Expatriation Act (S.1698/H.R.3166)

Suspension of Posse Comitatus Act

US Star chamber

The above speaks less and less about trustworthiness and more about treason.


There is no bill of rights - there is no constitution, they have been sacrifice on the altar of the phony war on terror and Zbigniew Brzezinski Eurasia plan.

But using terminology like 'juice box' in a south east london forum just seems a bit odd!


You wouldn't be telling me to 'have a chai' if we were discussing whether the much touted emergence of India as a superpower is a false dawn, would you?


Like I say, weird obsession.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...