13 thoughts on “Blair forced to comment on Natwest 3

  1. P O'Neill

    It was covered on Today in Parliament on BBC R4. The segment happens about 10 mins in. Ming asked the question and then they went on to note a strange sequence of events in the House of Lords — someone had attempted to raise it on Tuesday but the speaker (or whatever it’s called in the HoL) had ruled it sub judice. She abjectly apologised on Wednesday, since the 3 have exhausted all British legal processes, and therefore there is nothing to be sub judice.

  2. Gerry

    is this true?

    “America had just been put on the same footing as most European countries, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, added Mr Blair.”

  3. P O'Neill

    Gerry, my assumption is that Blair is spinning. In particular on the points of (1) reciprocity: Australia, NZ, Canada would have same extradition to UK as UK has to them, but in this case, the US Senate never ratified the treaty corresponding to the anti-terrorism legislation in the UK under which the 3 are being extradited, and (2): detention — the 3 will either be detained on remand or have to post huge bail to be free while the evidence which could take 2 years(!) is assembled. And finally, I doubt that prosecutors in the other countries would even bother with a case where the alleged crime was not committed in their countries, also the case for the 3.

  4. Pingback: Female viagra.

  5. Pingback: jeux poker texas holdem gratuites

  6. Pingback: poker online spielen ohne anmelden

  7. Pingback: jeux gratuits du casino

  8. Pingback: torneos de poker gratis

  9. Pingback: casino euro com

  10. Pingback: crazy frog video ringtones

Comments are closed.