This article titled “Theresa May to review UK extradition treaty with US” was written by Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent, for guardian.co.uk on Wednesday 22nd February 2012 16.26 UTC

Theresa May, the home secretary, will conduct a “proper, sober, thoughtful review” into Britain’s extradition treaty with the US amid anger at a series of deportations, David Cameron has announced.

The prime minister told MPs that the home secretary would take account of the views of parliamentarians after he was asked about the case of Christopher Tappin.

The retired company director from Kent is due to be flown to the US on Friday to face allegations of selling arms to Iran. Tappin, 65, admits shipping batteries that can be used in Hawk air defence missiles but says he thought they were used in the car industry. He also had no idea about their eventual destination.

Tappin’s case was raised by his MP Jo Johnson at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. Johnson, the MP for Beckenham and brother of the London mayor, Boris Johnson, said: “US marshals will on Friday escort my 65-year-old constituent Chris Tappin from Heathrow to a jail in Texas, where he will face pressure to plea-bargain in order to avoid lengthy incarceration pending a financially ruinous trial for a crime he insists he did not commit.

“Could the prime minister say what steps he is considering to reform the US/UK extradition treaty that been so unfair to the likes of Gary McKinnon and now my constituent, Mr Tappin?”

The prime minister indicated that the government would not block the extradition of Tappin. He said: “I quite understand why [he] raises this case of his constituent. In the case of Chris Tappin obviously he has been through a number of processes including the magistrates court and the high court. The home secretary has thoroughly considered his case.”

Cameron cited an independent report last year by Lord Justice Scott Baker which said that the 2003 Extradition Act was not “lopsided” or biased against British citizens. Critics have said that the act, drawn up in haste after the 9/11 attacks, is unfair because British citizens do not enjoy the same level of legal protection as US citizens.

Gary McKinnon, the alleged computer hacker who has Asperger’s syndrome, faces extradition under the treaty.

The prime minister said: “[Jo Johnson] raises the point more generally of Sir Scott Baker’s report into the extradition arrangements, which he has made and we are now considering. He did not call for fundamental reform.”

But Cameron said May would lead a thorough review of the extradition treaty. “The home secretary is going to carefully examine his findings and also take into account the views of parliament that have been expressed in recent debates.

“Of course balancing these arrangements is absolutely vital. But I think it is important that at the same time we remember why we enter into these extradition treaties, which is to show respect to each other’s judicial processes and make sure that people who are accused of crimes can be tried for those crimes and Britain can benefit from that as well. So a proper, sober thoughtful review needs to take place and this case shows why.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Sky News clamps down on Twitter use” was written by Josh Halliday, for guardian.co.uk on Tuesday 7th February 2012 19.34 UTC

Sky News has told its journalists not to repost information from any Twitter users who are not an employee of the broadcaster.

An email to staff on Tuesday laid out new social media guidelines for Sky News employees, including a contentious ban on retweeting rival “journalists or people on Twitter”.

The new guidelines also warn Sky News journalists to “stick to your own beat” and not to tweet about non-work subjects from their professional accounts.

Sky News has cultivated a reputation for digital innovation and has used Twitter to break news on events including the Arab Spring uprising and England riots. Journalists at the broadcaster expressed shock and dismay at the new guidelines, which they claim are a retrograde step.

The email to staff, which has been seen by MediaGuardian, said: “So, to reiterate, don’t tweet when it is not a story to which you have been assigned or a beat which you work.

“Where a story has been Tweeted by a Sky News journalist who is assigned to the story it is fine, desirable in fact, that it is retweeted by other Sky News staff.

“Do not retweet information posted by other journalists or people on Twitter. Such information could be wrong and has not been through the Sky News editorial process.”

The email says that the guidelines have been introduced “to ensure that our journalism is joined up across platforms, there is sufficient editorial control of stories reported by Sky News journalists and that the news desks remain the central hub for information going out on all our stories”.

The email said: “1. Don’t tweet when it’s someone else [sic] story. Stick to your own beat. 2. Always pass breaking news lines to the news desk before posting them on social media networks.”

It added that “on a number of occasions” those guidelines have been flouted “resulting in us running different information on Twitter other Sky platforms or the news desks learning from Twitter details that should have been first passed on to them”.

The guidelines on checking tweets with Sky News news desk do not apply to “verbatim reporting” on Twitter of court cases, parliament or judicial inquiries “to which you have been assigned”.

A Sky News spokeswoman said: “Sky News has the same editorial procedures across all their platforms including social media to ensure the news we report is accurate.”

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

• To get the latest media news to your desktop or mobile, follow MediaGuardian on Twitter and Facebook

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Barack Obama faces pressure over TVShack extradition case” was written by Lizzy Davies and agencies, for The Guardian on Tuesday 31st January 2012 15.50 UTC

Barack Obama has come under pressure to explain American attempts to extradite a British student accused of breaking US copyright law, after a web campaign to raise awareness of the case propelled it to the top of a presidential question-and-answer session.

A query about Richard O’Dwyer, a 23-year-old Sheffield Hallam undergraduate who faces jail if sent for trial and convicted in the US, was the most asked of more than 133,000 questions submitted to a live online Google+ “hangout” with the president broadcast on Monday.

O’Dwyer, the creator of the now-defunct TVShack website, which allowed users to watch film and television programmes without charge, is alleged by US authorities to have earned nearly £150,000 from his online activities. A court ruled this month that he could be sent for trial in the US – a prospect his lawyers say would make him a guinea pig for US copyright law.

Obama sought to distance himself from the case when asked by the web personality Michael Mozart, a vehement critic of anti-piracy legislation, to explain why the extradition was being attempted.

“Why are you personally supporting the extradition of British citizen Richard O’Dwyer for solely linking to copyright-infringing works using an extradition treaty designed to combat terrorism and to bring terrorists to judgment in the USA?” Mozart asked.

The president replied: “I’m not personally doing anything; I want to make sure everybody understands. One of the ways our system works is that the president doesn’t get involved with prosecution decisions or extradition decisions and this has been a decision by the justice department.”

Obama spoke in greater depth on the contentious issue of internet piracy and copyright law, saying his administration was trying to “make sure that intellectual property is protected; we want to make sure that the creative works of people in this country aren’t expropriated but we want to do it in a way that’s consistent with internet freedom”.

O’Dwyer’s mother, Julia, said Obama had given a “typical politician’s response” but she was glad the question had been asked because it drew attention to the case.

Reiterating her criticism of the extradition treaty between the US and Britain, which she and others say is biased, Mrs O’Dwyer urged the government to take action. “Given our government won’t protect its own citizens, it’s up to Mr Obama to put a stop to the ridiculous and appallingly harsh attempts to extradite Richard, and others facing similarly unnecessary treatment.”

She later added: “The politicians in this country are just sitting by, doing nothing really.”

Despite his lawyers’ attempts to argue that TVShack had not stored copyright material but had, like other legitimate websites, pointed users towards places they could find it, O’Dwyer was told by Westminster magistrates court last month he was eligible to face trial in the US. He was arrested at his home in Yorkshire by British and American police in November 2010, but does not face criminal charges in the UK.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “British businessman to fight against US extradition in European court” was written by Peter Walker, for The Guardian on Tuesday 31st January 2012 12.28 UTC

A retired British businessman facing extradition to the US over allegations he plotted to export missile components to Iran will make an emergency application to the European court of human rights after being refused leave to appeal to the supreme court.

Christopher Tappin, from Orpington, in Kent, has said he was the victim of entrapment and that US customs agents enticed him into the deal, which he says made him a profit of 0 (£325). His is among a series of recent cases to focus attention on the UK-US extradition treaty, which critics allege is grossly biased in favour of America.

Magistrates first ordered Tappin to be extradited to Texas in February last year. He appealed to the high court and lost that case this month. If convicted in the US he could face a jail sentence of up to 35 years.

The 65-year-old’s lawyers said they would apply to take the case to the supreme court, the country’s highest legal body. But two high court judges, Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cranston, ruled that they would not permit the application, saying the case did not raise legal issues of sufficient general importance.

It means Tappin’s lawyers have used all possible UK-based legal avenues to prevent his extradition.

His solicitor, Karen Todner, said an application would be lodged with the European court “in the next few days” seeking a halt on Tappin’s extradition pending a full hearing of his case. Government solicitors had agreed not to remove Tappin for 14 days to allow for the application, Todner added.

Tappin admits arranging shipment of the batteries, a type used in US-made Hawk surface-to-air missiles, from the US to the Netherlands in 2006 but insists he had no idea about their final destination.

His lawyers told the appeal court that Tappin was set up by agents from the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency who established a fake company, Mercury Global Enterprises, to “ensnare unsuspecting importers such as Mr Tappin”.

The agents told Tappin they would obtain the export licences necessary for the batteries, the court was told. When Tappin raised concerns about this, one of the agents told him “this would not be a problem”. The British businessman was sent paperwork by the agents saying that no licence was needed.

Tappin’s argument was rejected by the high court. “Entrapment, as far as I can see, is simply unsustainable on the facts as alleged in the request,” the appeal ruling said.

Tappin, who is the president of the Kent county golf union, has also unsuccessfully appealed against the extradition on human rights grounds, saying he is the primary carer for his wife, who has a rare and debilitating auto-immune condition, Churg-Strauss syndrome.

The most prominent case to focus attention on the 2003 extradition treaty between Britain and the US is that of Gary McKinnon, whom US prosecutors have sought since 2005 for hacking into top-secret US military computers.

McKinnon, 45, admits the hacking but says he was looking for evidence of UFOs. His supporters argue that McKinnon, who has Asperger’s syndrome, is extremely vulnerable and that any trial should take place in Britain.

A more recent case is that of Richard O’Dwyer, a 23-year-old student from Chesterfield. This month a magistrates court approved his extradition to the US for running a website posting links to pirated TV shows and films, despite significant doubts over whether such sites break any UK laws. O’Dwyer has never visited the US and his website used servers based in other countries.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “Twitter faces censorship backlash” was written by Charles Arthur, for guardian.co.uk on Friday 27th January 2012 12.19 UTC

The social network Twitter is facing a storm of criticism from users, after revealing that it has implemented a system that would let it withhold particular tweets from specific countries.

The company has insisted that it will not use the gagging system in a blanket fashion, but would apply it on a case-by-case basis, as already happens when governments or organisations complain about individual tweets.

The new system, which can filter tweets on a country-by-country basis and has already been incorporated into the site’s output, will not change Twitter’s approach to freedom of expression, sources there indicated.

In theory it could have been used last year in the UK to block tweets exposing details hidden by superinjunctions about celebrities, or in 2010 when Trafigura used a superinjunction to block the Guardian and BBC from revealing details about a report on activities in Africa.

A number of superinjunctions have been abandoned after details leaked on Twitter, to the displeasure of some judges.

However, activists in countries such as Syria or China might be concerned that they would be unable to see information they need to know.

Twitter insists that the system will only formalise a system it already uses, where tweets are blocked or deleted following full judicial process. Being able to limit tweets to particular countries, rather than blocking them altogether, expands its ability to “let tweets flow”.

In a blogpost, it points out that France and Germany restrict pro-Nazi content; under the US’s First Amendment, tweets with such view would be legal in the US while illegal in those countries.

Google, Yahoo, eBay and Facebook already use similar systems to control what content is shown in which countries.

In China, Google indicates when a search result has been censored. In the same way, blocked tweets will say: “This tweet from [username] is withheld.” The blocking can work at the individual tweet or account level.

But some users have been critical of the move, which has already seen an update to Twitter’s API, the means through which programs access and show tweets.

Every tweet includes fields such as the user’s name, time of the tweet and the tweet’s content. But now it will also include a “withheld_in_countries” field.

Terence Eden, a London-based mobile developer, complained on Twitter: “I don’t want to develop on an API which contains a ‘withheld_in_countries’ field. What’s next, a ‘for_your_own_good’ field?” He added: “I helped develop a Twitter client that Chinese pro-democracy activists used. Guess that’s dead now. Thanks, Twitter.”

Eden, who describes the move as censorship, said it would be difficult to work around because Twitter will identify which country a user is in by their internet address. “You can spot the censorship, but it’s hard to route around it,” he said.

Twitter says it will continue to post requests for the blocking or censoring of tweets to the Chilling Effects site where it has recorded requests to remove tweets from its service.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As Gary McKinnon’s local MP, David Burrowes has been leading the campaign in Parliament to stop his extradition to the US.
For that we would like to congratulate him and hope that he can keep up the pressure on the government to bring Garys tortuous 10 years to an end.
Above quotes taken from David Burrowes MP site.

This article titled “Gary McKinnon gets MPs’ backing in extradition debate” was written by Allegra Stratton, political correspondent, for The Guardian on Tuesday 6th December 2011 00.42 UTC

MPs have urged the government to improve safeguards for British citizens wanted by authorities overseas by reforming extradition laws, indicating the strength of political feeling in support of Gary McKinnon, who has been battling for six years against a US extradition bid to face hacking charges.

The Commons agreed without a vote to call on ministers to bring forward new laws and attempt to change the UK-US extradition treaty and the European arrest warrant.

A sizeable group of MPs feels the extradition treaty with the US is unbalanced. They point out that the UK needs to show evidence or “probable cause” to a US court if it wishes to extradite a suspect whereas the US only needs to have “reasonable suspicion” to seek extradition.

Esher and Walton Conservative MP Dominic Raab, who secured the debate on the issue, said the motion “is not about abolishing extradition, which is vital to international efforts in relation to law enforcement; it’s about whether, in taking the fight to the terrorists and the serious criminals after 9/11, the pendulum swung too far the other way”.

An independent review of the UK-US extradition has been conducted by former court of appeal judge Sir Scott Baker. It concluded there was no reason to believe it was operating unfairly. However, reflecting parliamentary and public anxiety, the home secretary Theresa May is currently looking at the issue.

The US has stepped up its demand for the extradition of alleged hacker McKinnon. The 45-year-old, who his been diagnosed with Asperger’s, stands accused of hacking into the computers of Nasa and the Pentagon from his home in north London, but he has claimed he did so mistakenly and was actually searching for “little green men”.

The US ambassador, Louis Susman, appeared in parliament last week and told MPs he believed the treaty was working well.

In the debate, Raab said: “At root it is about the injustice in dispatching someone with Asperger’s syndrome hundreds of miles from home on allegations of computer hacking when he was apparently searching for unidentified flying objects. Gary McKinnon should not be treated like some gangland mobster or al-Qaida mastermind.”

Former home secretary David Blunkett told MPs he had held private meetings with US Department of Justice officials to persuade the authorities to let McKinnon stay in the UK while he faced court proceedings and to ask whether or not McKinnon could serve any sentence in the UK if convicted.

Blunkett told the BBC it was more important to find out “whether it is possible, using modern technology and video conferencing, for the trial to take place on US soil, but for Gary to remain in Britain and for him to serve his sentence here”.

The parliamentary motion, proposed by Raab, had support from former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell and the chair of the home affairs select committee, Labour MP Keith Vaz. The issue won parliamentary time after it was accepted by the backbench business committee.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “This treaty means extradition on demand” was written by Helena Kennedy, for The Guardian on Sunday 4th December 2011 20.30 UTC

‘Strengthen protection for British citizens” – that’s the rallying call of Monday’s motion for debate in the House of Commons. But surely there’s little need to remind government in this regard? Isn’t that, after all, their primary duty?

Just ask 23-year-old Richard O’Dwyer how protected he feels by his government. As a result of our extradition laws, he’s facing a battle royal in the courts to try to avoid being hauled out of Sheffield Hallam University to face trial in America – on breach of copyright charges. Ask Babar Ahmad, the British IT analyst from London who has spent the last seven years in prison while decisions are made on his fate. The Crown Prosecution Service has just confessed it hasn’t even seen the evidence which is said to support the US request to extradite him.

And ask Christopher Tappin, who was looking forward to an enjoyable retirement presiding over the union of golf clubs in Kent. Instead he’s spent the last 18 months in fear of being extradited on charges of exporting batteries from the US, from what turned out to be a fictitious company set up by the US authorities for entrapment purposes. Entrapment is unlawful in this country, so any such prosecution based on these tactics would be thrown out of English courts.

Sadly, the list goes on. Why? Because ever since the Extradition Act 2003 came into force, foreign jurisdictions have succeeded in extraditing citizens and non-national residents from these shores on the basest of evidence. In many of these extraditions, if a crime had been committed at all, it was committed in the UK and therefore should be prosecuted in the UK (the “forum” argument).

The devastating effect of these basic flaws in the legislation has become increasingly evident as each new person’s plight comes to light. Many have commendably campaigned on the issue for years, not least Liberty, Fair Trials International and those behind Friends Extradited. Yet six years on, they’re still having to bang the same drum.

While the numbers of individuals being extradited under the European Arrest Warrant to EU countries are the highest (more than 6,000) since the regime was introduced in 2004, it’s clear the US also considers it has considerable extraterritorial reach. It claims jurisdiction over cases that have a limited connection to the US, and is fully able to do so under the current US-UK treaty and passive prosecutorial guidelines.

Louis Susman, the US ambassador, has been doing the rounds of MPs recently, apparently desperate to preserve the status quo. That in itself may suggest how favourably the US looks on the US-UK extradition treaty, and raises another question with a seemingly obvious answer: in whose interests is the UK government supposed to act? If there is a case to be answered concerning allegations of criminality that occurred in the UK, why should the US object to the case being tried in the UK?

To my mind, where there is clear evidence to a criminal standard of a crime being committed either in the UK or from the UK and jurisdiction is being contested, an English court should be required to determine the strength of the evidence and the “forum conveniens” – that is, the location of any prosecution. The court’s decision on forum should be based on clear guidance – the nationality of the defendant and the victim; location of both the prosecution and defence evidence, witnesses, and so forth. Yet as it stands there is no statutory right for a UK defendant to challenge extradition on forum grounds.

The US ambassador is keen to ensure that this virtual extradition-on-demand process is here to stay. He is reported to have gone so far as to say of the US-UK extradition treaty: “It is now incumbent on the UK government to stand in support of it”, in the face of the potential vote against it by MPs.

Perhaps now is the time to remind the ambassador what one of his own US senators, Chris Dodd (a Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election), said when asked in 2006 to urgently ratify the US-UK treaty because the then prime minister, Tony Blair, was having trouble selling it to the British people: “I’m not going to do it because they want me to! I have an obligation to the people here and to my constituents. We cannot go around tailoring our own laws because a foreign power is putting political pressure on us to do so or because critics of Tony Blair’s do not like something. Where would America be today if we did that?”

Quite. Let’s hope our own parliamentary representatives will be as bold now that they have a chance, finally, to vote for greater protection for British citizens.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Never before has it been more important to show your individual support for Gary McKinnon as the US continues its persecution of an extremely vulnerable British citizen.
Yesterday 1st December 2011.
The US ambassador to the UK has told MPs the extradition treaty between the two countries works well.
Louis Susman told the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee it was “fair and balanced” and “promotes the interests of justice” in both countries.
The meeting came ahead of a Commons debate on the controversial issue.To be held on Monday 5th December as a full cross party debate.
The Tory chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Richard Ottaway, said it was clear the ambassador felt very strongly about the treaty.
As we do here at Tweet4Gary, particularly in the light of recent reports that An independent review of the treaty led by the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker, which costthe country half a million pounds and took more than a year to complete may have been influenced by the United States Attorney General Eric Holder.
We strongly believe that the interference of both the US Ambassador and the US Attorney General only confirms our concerns that the US is only concerned with getting its man, regardless of his human rights.
The main issue today of course is to fight back.
Many of us are only too aware of the incredible failures of the previous government to stand up for Gary.
The Home secretary of 2003 who negotiated the horendous treaty with the US has never had to answer for his mistakes to parliament but was happy to admit his contempt for British Citizens to The Daily Mail
‘I gave too much away’: David Blunkett’s startling admission on UK-U.S. extradition treaty
And as we hear today from a trustworthy source, Labour intend to try and defeat this essential motion on Monday created by Dominic Raab with cross party support from Keith Vaz and Sir Menzies Campbell.
Parliament to have historic vote on extradition

Finally can I say if you have any doubts about Labours intentions remember 2009.
BETRAYED: Spineless Labour MPs who backed Asperger’s victim’s bid to beat extradition desert him.
In 2009 Labour MPs were accused of hypocrisy after abandoning Gary McKinnon in his fight against extradition to the U.S.
Dozens had previously given written pledges of their support to the Asperger’s Syndrome sufferer.
But only eight stuck to their guns and joined the Tories and Liberal Democrats in voting against the Government.
When it came to a vote, however, 74 Labour MPs who had previously signed Commons motions backing Mr McKinnon or demanding a review of extradition agreements with the U.S. failed to go against the party line. Fifty-nine voted with the Government and 15 abstained.
Tory justice spokesman David Burrowes, Mr McKinnon’s MP in Enfield Southgate, said: ‘It’s a sad day for Parliament.
Eighty-two Labour MPs signed three Parliamentary motions, dating back to 2005, opposing the Extradition Act and sending Gary McKinnon to the U.S. for trial.
But only eight of them had the integrity to back the Tory Opposition Day call for an ‘immediate review’ of the one-sided treaty. Of the other 74 Labour backbenchers, 59 displayed rank hypocrisy by supporting the Government. Another 15 abstained.
The Turncoats were:
Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington), David Anderson (Blaydon), John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead), Joe Benton (Bootle), Clive Betts (Sheffield Attercliffe), Lyn Brown (West Ham), Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway), Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield), Dawn Butler (Brent South), Martin Caton (Gower), Ann Cryer (Keighley), Jim Cunningham (Coventry South)
Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford), Janet Dean (Burton), Jim Dowd (Lewisham West), Jeff Ennis (Barnsley East and Mexborough), Hywel Francis (Aberavon), Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow), Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath), Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland), John Grogan (Selby), Patrick Hall (Bedford), David Heyes (Ashton under Lyne), Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North), Joan Humble (Blackpool North and Fleetwood), Brian Iddon (Bolton South East), Eric Illsley (Barnsley East)
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate), Brian Jenkins (Tamworth), Martyn Jones (Clwyd South), Sadiq Khan ( Tooting), Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith), Tony Lloyd ( Manchester Central), Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East), Jim McGovern (Dundee West), Anne McGuire ( Stirling), Shahid Malik (Dewsbury), Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South), Anne Moffat (East Lothian), Madeleine Moon (Bridgend), Julie Morgan (Cardiff North), George Mudie (Leeds East)
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe), Gordon Prentice (Pendle), Joan Ruddock (Lewisham Deptford), Joan Ryan (Enfield North), Martin Salter (Reading West), Andy Slaughter (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush), John Smith ( Glamorgan), Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South), Gavin Strang (Edinburgh East)
David Taylor (North West Leicestershire), Desmond Turner (Brighton Kemptown), Rudi Vis (Finchley and Golders Green), Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge), Bob Wareing (Liverpool West Derby), Betty Williams (Conway), Anthony Wright (Great Yarmouth), Iain Wright (Hartlepool).
The Abstainers
Roger Berry (Kingswood), Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham), Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead), Andrew Dismore (Hendon), Bill Etherington (Sunderland North), Frank Field (Birkenhead), Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East), John Heppell (Nottingham East), Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton), Christine McCafferty (Calder Valley), Bob Marshall-Andrews ( Medway), Chris Mullin (Sunderland South), Edward O’Hara (Knowsley South), Marsha Singh (Bradford West), Mike Wood (Batley and Spen).
After the MP’s expenses scandal, if they want our trust as they will surely want our vote in 2015 then its certainly time to see that in their actions as opposed to their words.
As part of our Christmas plea we ask that you please ask your MP to sign and support the Dominic Raab’ motion on extradition on the 5th December 2011.
Its important to remember that all ministers in the current coalition cabinet supported Gary prior to the last election, so please remind them.
The easiest way to do this is to use the Write To Them website
This is also available in the right hand bar on this site.
As always we wish all of the supporters of Gary and visitors to this site A Happy and Peaceful Christmas Season.
May 2012 finally bring joy to Gary Janis and family

Click here to view the embedded video.