Christopher Tappin
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
How convenient. Only 8 nations have listed them as such. Thelist of countries who do not is quite large. You know they were established after the IsrEli invasion of the Lebanon. So, it is the old 'freedom fighter/terrorist conundrum'.
Yes, I appreciate that their definition as a terrorist organisation is a political decision. However, the issues here are legal, and the fact remains that in the US, and here, Iran is considered a sponsor of terrorism. So don't be surprised if the US Government comes after you when you try to buy military equipment in the US and sell it to Iran, deliberately trying to avoid their sanctions. And don't expect the UK Government to have much sympathy. Amateurish said:
Yes, I appreciate that their definition as a terrorist organisation is a political decision. However, the issues here are legal, and the fact remains that in the US, and here, Iran is considered a sponsor of terrorism. So don't be surprised if the US Government comes after you when you try to buy military equipment in the US and sell it to Iran, deliberately trying to avoid their sanctions. And don't expect the UK Government to have much sympathy.
I know why he is being charged, however, I am more concerned with the fact that minimal evidence has been shown, and yet the extradition has been granted. It's always fun pointing out hypocrisy with these things, however. TheHeretic said:
I know why he is being charged, however, I am more concerned with the fact that minimal evidence has been shown, and yet the extradition has been granted. It's always fun pointing out hypocrisy with these things, however.
According to Wiki (I'm no expert), extraditions between the US and UK (in either direction) do not require evidence, only demonstration of "reasonable suspicion" (UK - US) or "probable cause" (US - UK). If you read the case report, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that this test was met.
Amateurish said:
LukeBird said:
Deliciously ironic when they have supplied a huge amount of military hardware to Iran over the years...
Is your suggestion that we should supply arms and military equipment to Iran?iphonedyou said:
Amateurish said:
Is your suggestion that we should supply arms and military equipment to Iran?
Not sure how you read his statement and came up with that question, to be honest.Amateurish said:
If you read the case report, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that this test was met.
That doesn't prove anything, merely that "reasonable suspicion" was determined. Given it looks like he was entrapped, that hardly seems a surprise does it?Was he entrapped?
By the sounds of it, Tappin and his mate Gibson had already planned how to transprot these batteries and they already knew it was dodgy.
Can you entrap someone into doing something they were already going to do?
If so then surely things like test purchasing in the UK would be unlawful...
By the sounds of it, Tappin and his mate Gibson had already planned how to transprot these batteries and they already knew it was dodgy.
Can you entrap someone into doing something they were already going to do?
If so then surely things like test purchasing in the UK would be unlawful...
fluffnik said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We should both say "Sod you Uncle Sam" and try those who signed for treason... 
s, the lots of them...... Govt epetition here - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/30569
I have to say that I think there is more to this than meets the eye. HOWEVER, the sheer hypocrisy of this case beggars belief. According to Wikipedia both the US and the UK have in the past have sold arms to Iraq (yes I know it's not Iran) and it would appear if there is money to be made then arms trading is alright. So if it is a government doing it then it is permissable, otherwise apparently it's not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff