I’m looking forward to Jack of Kent’s analysis of this case, due next week I believe. I wonder how Clegg’s opinion will compare?

Um, how the hell is that a u-turn? He’s saying that the government might not be able to completely reverse it all. For example, the government does not have the power to overturn the decision of say, the supreme court, hence stopping the extradition will probably have to come down to the new case based on medical grounds as opposed to reversing prior decisions of the courts.

Now, as a Lib Dem I can promise you that if there really is a u-turn by our party on his extradition then I will be the first to call foul and I will even try to put forwards a motion at conference condemning it.

Clegg is a fucking weasel. A man with asperger’s is going to be gang raped in an American prision and Clegg shakes his head.

The next time our soldiers come home in boxes thanks to friendly fire, why not attempt to extradite the pilot/gunner and see how far we get?

Freedom and fairness? Don’t kid yourselves on. You are Tory stooges and never forget that.

Imran works for the Labour party

That would be the Labour party whose scandalously grovelling Extradition Treaty caused this problem in the first place yes? Jesus, it’s like having an arsonist standing in the front garden criticising the fire brigade for getting the carpets wet.

Next on LibCon – ‘Chuh, the coalition have messed up the Middle East a bit haven’t they?’

Tim J – you’re kind of missing the point aren’t you? Deliberately. Clegg and the Tories maintained they could save him and what the govt was doing was a travesty.

Oh how easy it is when not being in government. Now what happened to their principles?

Clegg and the Tories maintained they could save him and what the govt was doing was a travesty.

Oh how easy it is when not being in government.

As we’re seeing – Alastair Darling insisting that the Government spends within its means, shadow ministers cross because announcements aren’t being made in the Commons – it really didn’t take long for Labour to scale the heights of sanctimonious hypocrisy.

But in this case, this sort of nonsense doesn’t even apply. Nick Clegg has always said that a) the Treaty is a sack of shit and should be repealed and re-negotiated and b) in this specific case Human Rights law should be used to block extradition even under the sack of shit law Labour introduced. And what’s happening?

The Lib Dem leader made his new remarks in the wake of the decision by Home Secretary Theresa May to halt Gary’s extradition while she considers fresh medical evidence that he will kill himself if sent to the U.S

Oh look – exactly what he said should happen when in opposition. Probably better to wait and see what actually happens before gleefully rejoicing in the fate of someone screwed over by Labour.

I was prepared to be outraged after seeing your headline, until I read the rest of his quote – and saw there was no u-turn.

“It’s legally very complex. But on the sort of morality and principle of it, I haven’t changed my view one bit.
“It would be the right thing to do to have Gary McKinnon tried in this country.”

Is Liberal Conspiracy going to start taking all of its journalistic cues from the Daily Mail, then? I thought we were against that sort of thing?

Alastair Darling insisting that the Government spends within its means

What does that have to do with a tin of beans? Were you predicting the financial crisis? Was your man Osborne doing it? No? Surprise

Maybe I’m just being thick here, but from the Clegg quote above he isn’t saying he can’t do anything. He’s saying it’s complex and he’s looking into it. Also clearly, we don’t want a situation where ministers can make up the law as they go along. Where’s the U-turn? Because he said in August 2009 it could be done, but now in May 2010 it isn’t? In August 2009, I could celebrate being 38, but now I can’t. Time happens. (As said above, though, I’d like to see a proper legal analysis of this. But this post ain’t it. Maybe there’s smoke and fire. I’m not qualified to comment.)

Re principles, that quote above has also been conveniently sliced. It continues: “… on the morality and principle of it, I haven’t changed my view one little bit.”

Source

And the “Imran works for the Labour Party” bit. That’s just the punchline, surely?

I second George W Potter. We’ll be plenty outraged – if it happens the way Imran tries to pretend it already has. Not because Clegg has said it’s going to be difficult even though he “hasn’t changed his mind one bit”. The title of this, in view of the content, is quite insulting.

What happened to all the genuinely laudable words from these parts of trying to keep in touch with the sympathetic Lib Dems despite the coalition? Some lovely bridge-building going on @3.

What does that have to do with a tin of beans? Were you predicting the financial crisis? Was your man Osborne doing it? No? Surprise.

Um, because it’s Satan rebuking sin with a vengeance? Because his party fought an election campaign promising not to cut spending this year less than a month ago? Because in the same breath he criticised David Laws for his spending cuts as well? Because it was an example of wanting to have your cake, eat it and make trifle out of it as well.

David Blunkett was quite happy to hand Mckinnon over to a State Attorney who was threatening to have him fried in an electric chair, big bad strong law and order thug John Reid was prepared to send him off to face a 60 year sentence.

Nu Lab really is living in La La land. Britain has changed radically and all you can go on about is 70′s feminism and witch-hunting a guy with Aspergers.

How out-dated.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the country is moving to the left, fast. Cameron is perfectly aware of that and is auto-da-feing his right wing. Its time you guys dropped your Thatcherite policies and mind sets.

@12

In case you hadn’t noticed, the country is moving to the left, fast. Cameron is perfectly aware of that and is auto-da-feing his right wing.

Have I stepped into a parallel universe a la Doctor Who or are you really trying to say that the Cameron is some sort of radical left-winger?

I see Tim Jerk is spouting his usual party political clap trap on this site again.Of course what he does not tell you is how many tories voted for this law in the first place. But Sunny is right to show up Cleggs double talk. Of which I expect we will get quite a bit no he is in power.

Also, anyone who thinks the tories won’t do what the Americans say is living in a pile of blue dog shit.

Alix @ 10

Perhaps I am just being cynical, but I smelt a rat the moment the coalition was announced. Despite the various pronouncements and policy statements made, I was never convinced that it would end up at anything other than a complete stitch and Lib Dems would collapse at every twist and turn. So, far, post negotiations, many, if not all of the announcements look less than 100% positive. IDS attempt to signal a workfare programme, without actually using the words and now Clegg trying to find a polite way of ‘up yours Gary’ without actually saying it. No matter how you read it, I think Clegg’s statement does not actually read as giving McKinnon any reassurance. Not when you look at what he said last year on the subject. I bet most Lib Dems would baulk at this had a Tory said that whilst in Government on their own.

I also remember that Diane Abbot announced that agreeing to the extradition of McKinnon was the right thing to do, so no sympathies there.

As others above, I’ll be outraged if and when McKinnon is extradited. I’m not holding my breath.

This is utterly pathetic, Britain desperately needs a proper oppossition, so far are there are few signs that Labour will provide it.
P.S. have you forgotten Iraq yet ? Dont worry, people have short memories, the blood will wash off.

I thought that it was established, long before August 2009, that Gary McKinnon could not be charged in the UK.

@Jim

“No matter how you read it, I think Clegg’s statement does not actually read as giving McKinnon any reassurance.”

What, not even “I haven’t changed my mind”? I’m sorry, I just don’t accept that saying something is a difficult and complex legal procedure (which it is) amounts to a u-turn. This is a bonkers conversation unless and until extradition is actually given a go-ahead. Then we’ll have a reason to be outraged.

I don’t think it’s so much cynicism as wishful thinking on your part, if I’m honest. Labour is all about the hate at the moment. It’s amazing, the number of Labourites who think the priority for their party should be to lavish the sort of hate on the Lib Dems that you were above. Why not get on with reforming yourselves into a decent left-wing semi-socialist party whom people might have positive reasons for voting for, and provide principled opposition?

I was wrong – Imran doesn’t work for the Labour party. Just a leftie activist.

I was prepared to be outraged after seeing your headline, until I read the rest of his quote – and saw there was no u-turn.

He’s clearing the ground for it, which is obvious.

“He’s clearing the ground for it, which is obvious.”

There is going to be quite a lot of this. I see the right wing are not going to wear the rise in capital gains tax so expect Clegg to back down on that one.

Alix @ 19

I should point out that I am an SNP supporter and not a Labour person. I know a few Labour activists though. I am sure that Clegg is trying to sweaten the pill and no doubt he is correct that it is a complex issue. However, the fact that he now accepts that this extradition may go ahead after his earlier statements, smacks of a consession too far in my book. The Lib Dems seem to cave in too many times.

The Tories are setting out their stall, the people who suffer the most during this recession are likely to be the poorest in society whilst the rich will avoid a rise in CGT, so much of us all being this together, eh?

Please tell me I’m not going to have to stop reading any vaguely left-leaning blog – I can’t stand the right-wing ones. But all these jerking knees are threatening to cause serious injury.

Let me get this right:

1. One of the first things the new Home Secretary does is announce that McKinnon’s extradition has been put on hold so that she can review the situation.

2. Nick Clegg has the honesty to point out that, due to the last government signing us up to a stupid (but binding) extradition treaty, the situation is complicated.

And this is supposedly another sign of Lib Dem U-turns and or eeeevil Tories being eeeeevil?

Seriously, guys – Sunny especially – you know I’m sympathetic, but you also know I’m nonpartisan. And I’m genuinely yet to see *anything* from the new government (at least in terms of policy) that has got me seriously concerned.

Why? Because they’ve only been in office for a fortnight. They haven’t done anything yet.

Seriously – I fear for your blood pressure if you’re this irate now. I hate to think what’ll happen when they’ve had time to actually pass some laws…

And why the hell should McKinnon not be extradited ?

There is an old saying ” If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime ”

GW

24

Except of course if the crime is rape.

Oh wait……….

@johnf

‘David Blunkett was quite happy to hand Mckinnon over to a State Attorney who was threatening to have him fried in an electric chair….’

Are you sure about that? You do realise that since signing the treaty of Rome, it has been legally impossible to extradite anyone who may face capital offence charges.

In time Nick Clegg will be exposed as the mendacious hypocrite that he is.

IDS attempt to signal a workfare programme

No, IDS is attempting to merge all existing workfare programmes (THAT LABOUR CREATED) into one programme.

Nosemonkey: Nick Clegg has the honesty to point out that, due to the last government signing us up to a stupid (but binding) extradition treaty, the situation is complicated.

That’s exactly what the last government was saying but no one paid any attention to that.
Your point also doesn’t stand up: Clegg should have known the situation was complicated because he was also aware that we were in that extradition treaty. Or has that come to light just now?

You’re really saying ‘Look, Clegg just got into power and he found out there was this whole treaty business that he didn’t know about earlier. So now he’s calling it ‘complicated’.

Jeebus.

It’s still not a u-turn though, is it?

If you’re looking for a driving analogy, “Nick Clegg puts his foot over the brake, just in case” might be more appropriate.

Come on – this is desperate. You’re clutching at straws. Be patient – there’ll be plenty of genuine fuck-ups, disasters and abuses down the line.

Oh I don’t doubt there will be fuck-ups, this will just be one of them.

I don’t find the driving analogy effective. Did he not read up on the extradition treaty earlier, before writing so much in support of Gary McKinnon, that things might be more “complicated” than he had given impression of?

the point here is simple: Clegg is being attacked for making wild claims in opposition that he didn’t really expect to be stand up later. Now he’s realising that real life is a lot more “complicated” than he had thought. Hopefully Libdems will too.

That u-turn? Oh, it’s coming.

@jim

Do you think people with mild Asperger’s syndrome should be spared the consequences of their actions?

I’m seriously considering giving up on reading Liberal Conspiracy. Before the election when I came here it seemed what it claimed to be, a place which tried to encompass the broad church that is the left. Hell, before the election some of you pouring vitriol on the Lib Dems now were praising them for being more left wing than Labour.Now it seems like this is nothing more than a Labour tribalist zone.

For fuck’s sake this article is calling a u-turn something which is a possible preparation for a change in position. Would that you’d been this quick on the ball when Labour was in power.

This stinks. It’s biased, inaccurate, tribal, insulting and hypocritical. If you want to truly fragment the left beyond repair then keep doing what you’re doing.

Jayu @ 27

“In time Nick Clegg will be exposed as the mendacious hypocrite that he is.”

Well he’ll be in fine company then as he’ll be joining about every member of the Labour leadership for the past 13 years.

Sevillista @ 32

It depends what those action are and where those actions occurred. Given that the alleged ‘crime’ was committed in a bedroom in London, then, yes I would spare him the ordeal of a show trial in an oppressive regime.

Given that the alleged crime was typing the word ‘password’ into a password field on supposedly the most sophisticated network in the World, then I think his punishment should be a five quid fine.

The next time on of ‘our boys’ comes home in a pine box after being at the wrong end of a helicopter gunship let us see how many Americans come here to give evidence.

@18 – In fact, it was established last year that Gary McKinnon CAN be tried in the uk, as Nick Clegg well knows, and has made a public statement to that effect. Don’t know where you’re getting your info from. You might want to ask Liberty, Matrix Chambers, the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, or even Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, who made the specific ruling in court, to name but a few.

You might also want to see what Clegg said with your own eyes, on the LibDems’ own channel (start at 1min51 in):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6bcoqaSOy8

And @32 – NO-ONE is saying that people with AS should not be held responsible for their actions. What people ARE saying is that the severity of a non-extraditable, non-violent crime arising from his AS symptoms, and that doesn’t warrant extradition even under the terms of the present treaty, should be weighed very carefully against extradition when his AS means that extradition would have an atypically damaging effect upon him.

“the point here is simple: Clegg is being attacked for making wild claims in opposition that he didn’t really expect to be stand up later. Now he’s realising that real life is a lot more “complicated” than he had thought. Hopefully Libdems will too.
That u-turn? Oh, it’s coming.”

Wow, that sounds kind of… eager. Mm, nice priorities on display here.

GWP @33

Don’t stop reading the blog, hang in there until Clegg confounds us all by pulling everything out of the fire. Once the Tory Right wing have been completely out foxed on everything, that victory wil be all the sweater when I and others are forced to eat humble pie and admit Clegg has made a positive difference.

Seriously, nothing would give me more pleasure ‘when’ I forced admit that Clegg has played a blinder and the Lib Dems are rubbing my cynical nose in it. I have been told that the LD will act as a bullwork against the worse excesses of the Tory Party, well I hope they are right, and if they are then I will happily accept ‘I told you so’ from the Lib Dems.

Sunny @31 – I think you’re missing my point. I’m not defending Clegg (I’ve never liked the man, even though – on paper – I should), I’m just disappointed at the hyperbole – first the Haw arrest (judging by the known facts not actually hypocritical, as claimed here), now this (by your own admission @31 not a U-turn, but merely a possible sign of one to come). Even your justification smacks of hyperbole (it wasn’t a “wild” claim, it was just a claim).

This is your gaff, and you can do what you want with it, but this tendency towards tabloid hysteria over the last couple of weeks is depressing. This knee-jerk anti-anything-to-do-with-the-coalition-simply-because-it-doesn’t-involve-Labour stuff is little better than the tedious, unthinking ZaNuLieBore rubbish we’ve had to put up with from the right for the last God knows how long.

After all, based on all your various mission statements over the years, what Liberal Conspiracy *should* be doing now is not desperately attacking the new government before it’s even done anything, but formulating a positive new vision for the revitalisation of the Labour party ahead of the leadership election.

Because really, if the best the left can come up with is unthinking attacks on anything that could even for a second look like a broken promise two weeks into a new administration, it’s screwed. It’s little better than the American Tea Party idiots and all those Republican morons who tried to blame Obama for all the crap that happened on Bush’s watch.

And if the left has no positive alternative vision to offer, that’s a very bad thing – because we’re likely to need a good opposition with the lot we’ve got occupying Whitehall at the moment…

I completely endorse what Nosemonkey said at 40. Congrats on the nomination for the award btw!

George @33, don’t let the facts get in the way of Sunny’s ‘narrative’.

Nosemonkey @ 40 Spot on.

Jim @ 39 Look, I’m not going to say the coalition is perfect, far from it, and it will inevitably do some bad things. However, at the moment I support the coalition and I believe that the Lib Dem members will be able to limit some of the worst tory tendencies whilst getting some genuine progressive policies implemented at the same time. I would have preferred a Lib Dem Lab coalition but, even if the numbers had added up, Labour blocked it from happening.

This article on the other hand, like several I have seen on here over the past few days, takes something small before blowing it up and distorting it. The facts do not come anywhere close to supporting the article. A far more honest and accurate article would be one entitled: “Do Nick Clegg’s remark hint at a possible u-turn on the extradition of Gary Mckinnon?”. I hoped never to say this but Lib Con is behaving worse than the daily mail. Sunny and Imran, hang your heads in shame.

I’m just disappointed at the hyperbole – first the Haw arrest (judging by the known facts not actually hypocritical, as claimed here), now this (by your own admission @31 not a U-turn, but merely a possible sign of one to come).

I reject the idea I was hyperbolic over what happened to Haw. I was pissed with the way Tories were framing the debate and I pointed out the obvious: Haw was stitched up and arrested (and the video we posted shows it) just because Tories thought he was an eyesore.

I happen to think that’s a pretty big attack on the right to demonstrate. And for the record, I’ve always been against the way Labour attacked the right to demonstrate and our civil liberties. I voted Libdem for that reason, remember?

In this case, I’ve pointed out why I think Clegg was wrong – he has been banging about an issue and in the end finds, once in govt, that things are “complicated”. Well blow me down with a fucking feather.

Two posts attacking the Libdems does not an editorial policy make. This was the only left-wing blog, immediately after the coalition agreement was signed, that was saying we should not start screaming ‘betrayal’ at the Libdems. A week later you guys are accusing me of kneejerk anti-Libdemmery.

Please. It would be nice if people took a slightly longer view and understood that this site publishes content by a range of people – some are very pro-Libdem and some are very tribal Labour. That has come with the territory from day one.

Anyone who judges the site merely from a few days of content and then starts making wild accusations is wasting my time.

Hi Sunny, it would be nice to have some articles written by Lib Dems who support the coalition, along the lines of “we should try to work with the Lib Dems in government AND Labour in opposition” – I would write one but I’m not a Lib Dem.

No, the problem here is that a) McKinnon is actually guilty, which means it’s very difficult to argue against extraditing him and b) he has the NatWest Three’s PR firm working for him, pro bono, which means that a load of complete rubbish has found its way into the UK media on the subject. The facts are, when writing in opposition, Clegg was completely wrong

Expert lawyers assure me that, even at this 11th hour, the Government could prosecute him for those crimes here at home, instead of in the U.S.

Very unlikely. The UK certainly asserts that computer crime carried out by foreigners against UK computers is an extraditable offence, so does everyone else.

It is imperative that it does so. Quite simply, the rest of Mr McKinnon’s life is on the line.

Quite simply, this is bullshit and the US Attorneys General regularly complain about the hysterical misrepresentation of this issue. The sentencing guidelines in the USA for this offence top out at eight years (which is the amount of time McKinnon has already spent having his life ruined by the appeals process). He was offered a 36 month plea bargain, which would have had him out in 18 months, with all but 6 served in the UK.

You can be sure that if the situation was reversed, American politicians would be moving hell and high water to protect one of their citizens from such a gross injustice

No they wouldn’t. They would simply insist on their citizen receiving due process under the Constitution (which is why they don’t reciprocate the automatic extradition processes of the UK treaty) . But this is irrelevant to the McKinnon case because he has received due process. That due process didn’t help him because he is guilty – as in, he actually did the thing he is accused of and has never denied it.

What has happened here is that while in Opposition, Cameron and Clegg were snowed by a PR firm, and now they’re in office, the civil servants have appraised them of the actual facts. Which is to say that there’s no legal case at all for not extraditing McKinnon. There is a case to be made in mitigation of his sentencing on grounds of his illness, or to be made in reduction of the damages in the case, but it’s clear that the place for such a plea to be made is in the court, not in an extradition tribunal.

FFS, Christopher “Dudus” Coke is actually a better candidate for fighting an extradition case. At least he does actually claim to be innocent of the crime he’s accused of.

I see Tim Jerk is spouting his usual party political clap trap on this site again.Of course what he does not tell you is how many tories voted for this law in the first place.

None, imbecile. It’s an international treaty, and therefore part of the royal prerogative and not subject to a vote in the Commons.

“Hi Sunny, it would be nice to have some articles written by Lib Dems who support the coalition, along the lines of “we should try to work with the Lib Dems in government AND Labour in opposition” – I would write one but I’m not a Lib Dem.”

Hi blanco,

Good idea and we’ll try and get some articles along these lines from Lib Dem members, but would you be interested in writing something about this from your perspective as a ‘non-Lib Dem but willing to give the coalition a chance’ leftie? donpaskini AT liberalconspiracy DOT org if you’d be interested.

‘It would be nice if people took a slightly longer view’ – yes that! A longer view like waiting for something to actually happen or become certain to happen before condemning it? I want to know where I can get one of these crystal balls that Sunny, Imran and others seem to be using to prejudge the course of events.

Actually Sunny I can count at least three articles where headline and the tone of the story do not match the facts. Opinion I’m fine with, what I despise is twisting the facts to match your opinion. If I wanted to see that then I’d read the Daily Express.

FFS, how hard is it to grasp that this is an article talking about a Lib Dem u-turn. When even you have admitted that at most what Nick Clegg said is softening the ground for a u-turn. And even that might not be the case.

Now, kindly do me the service of replying directly to the above paragraph and tell me I’m wrong about that and how I’m wrong. Please, I’d much rather believe that I misunderstood the article and the facts than believe that you’ve sunk to the lows of tabloid journalism. But if you keep avoiding answering that issue (as you’ve done so far in the comments) then I’ll be forced to conclude the former.

Jayu.

“American officials, however, see things very differently, with one New Jersey prosecutor promising to see the north Londoner “fry” for his hacking.”

http://tinyurl.com/n2et9x

I see no name for this so called New Jersey prosecutor. You may be inclined to believe everything you see in print, even when they not only fly in the face of reality, but attempt a crash landing. I, on the other hand, am not of that persuasion!

Now, kindly do me the service of replying directly to the above paragraph and tell me I’m wrong about that and how I’m wrong.

George, I do believe it is a u-turn and if you read between the lines, that is exactly what is coming. Because of what dsquared said above.

You’re just going to have to wait slightly longer for them to make excuses – but they will come.

For chrissake Clegg first said:

It is an affront to British justice that no one in the Labour Party has the courage to do the same… It is time for Gordon Brown and his Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, to step in and do the decent thing.

and is now saying:

What I haven’t got power to do, neither has the Home Secretary neither has even the Prime Minister, is to completely reverse and undo certain legal aspects of this.

How is that not a u-turn? What did he demand earlier that he is doing now himself?

American officials, however, see things very differently, with one New Jersey prosecutor promising to see the north Londoner “fry” for his hacking

Why would anyone care what a New Jersey (state) prosecutor said about what is clearly a Federal offence? How would such a prosecutor get anyone to “fry” when New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007? Has anyone checked whether computer hacking is a capital crime in any state of the USA (I have, and it isn’t).

Sunny, in your own words he is “preparing the ground for a u-turn”. The operative word being “preparing”.

A u-turn would be the government deciding that now they’re going to support the extradition of Gary. Given that the extradition has been halted for new medical evidence to be considered then that manifestly is not the case. Furthermore, you must surely be aware that legal situations change. What would have been a feasible course of action at one stage can become infeasible as time progresses. Now, if you believe there’s a u-turn coming then fine, but this article states that a u-turn has happened and complains that there’s no Lib Dem outrage on it.

In short, this article misrepresents the truth and distorts the facts. I thought you were better than this.

@Sunny – yes, Clegg said that it was an affront and that Labour should have stepped in. He said that early August in 2009. In the same article he finished by saying: ‘the clock is ticking. The Prime Minister just needs to pick up the phone to make this prosecution happen. I urge him to do so, before it is too late.’

That ticking clock has now ticked on by 9 months. Time passes and with it so do available options. I trust Nick to try everything to get the right result – it may not any longer be possible to stop the injustice that Labour allowed, but it will not be a u-turn (if – if – indeed the worst happens).

>I see no name for this so called New Jersey prosecutor. You may be inclined to believe everything you see in print, even when they not only fly in the face of reality, but attempt a crash landing. I, on the other hand, am not of that persuasion!

The name of the New Jersey prosecutor is Christopher J. Christie. A copy of the indictment he filed is at:

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/mckinnonIndict2.htm

At a press conference when the indictment was issued he expressed his desire to see McKinnon “fry.” The AP link to the report on the press conference has now gone down.

I researched this story intensively – with the help of a researcher – when I wrote the script of a Radio 4 play about McKinnon about three years ago. At the time I saw the original AP report. The writer of the Independent story I quote above had presumably also seen the original story.

JohnF – since your link includes the phrase -”Christie said. McKinnon faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison”, how do you reconcile this with claiming he would “fry” (and in general, surely you’re aware that computer fraud is not a capital offence?)

Tim jerk “None, imbecile. It’s an international treaty, and therefore part of the royal prerogative and not subject to a vote in the Commons.”

I am talking about the new extradition treaty with the US that Blair past through the commons. And I think you will find many tories voted for it.

60

My mistake it was pushed trough without a vote.

Did Baroness Scotland help push through the one-sided 2003 Extradition Treaty?

She’s obviously leads a charmed life when it comes to her own brushes with the law and her overclaim by £170,000in the expenses scandal.

Are they by any chance related?

http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-rich-stay-rich-baroness-scotlands-6.html

We need to march on number 10. Evict Cameron and Clegg and save our country. Etonions out and taxpayers in. Write me soon to arrange a date for our march.

Love…Laurie

Who are the bloody people who voted for him?

LIBCON….English politics…is that legal? Let me know.