Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

It was a perfectly legal extradition in a case investigated by police, grand jury and FBI. It is quite likely that they are guilty. They tried to get out of it by claiming stress and depression but now they can have their day in court.

What utter fucking rubbish, Haystack! You miss the whole point!

The way they are being treated is utterly ridiculous. It is utterly irrelevant as to whether 'they are quite likely to be Guilty', as you say, or even Innocent.

How is it right for our government to allow British citizens to be treated like this and locked up, banned from bringing even clothes and toothbrushes with them; let alone be utterly banned, prevented from bringing with them any borrowed money from friends or relatives to help them finance a defence.

It could be 18 months at least before they even get, what you call, their "day in court".

If it were you, how the fuck would you like to fund the management of your affairs in another country whilst you are in prison on your $29 per month prison pay, when the phone calls cost you $9 to get connected and then $4 per minute.

And they tried to get out of spending this time in a USA prison before the case by attempting suicide not by claiming stress and depression.

The stress and depression was brought on in the knowledge that they will be so powerfully forced and absolutely made to 'cop a plea'. In the USA guilt or innocence is irrelevant with these types of 'white collar crimes'. 99.9% of defendants end up doing exactly that.

And just compare this shitty prolonged out treatment, doled out to a British couple, by our 'allies' with the sort of stuff our government is doling out to, well, let's say, your average 'umarried, cat owning, fundamental terrorist'.

Your all Heart Haystack , and how long will they wait in prison before getting their day in court. If British citizens have to go to a USA prison and stand trail they should be treated the same as Amercian citizens are treated over here.

The alternative is to ignore the extradition which we can't do. The case has been fully investigated and they have to answer the case. It is no use claiming to be depressed and faking suicide, all of which makes them look more guilty.

I have no sympathy for them. They should have gone back straight away to face the charges.

You right wing bods make me laugh, if your not winging about one thing then it's another, if your not happy with the administrations that continually cosy up to the yanks then don't persistently vote for them.. which you do!

Had they gone back voluntarily, they could have taken toithbrushes etc. They chose to drag it all out over an extended period until they had to be arrested. They have even had access to our court and appeals. Now they have to face justice. I don't believe for a minute the nonsense about not being able to use borrowed money to fund a defence. Their son appears to be a lawyer and can arrange their defence. It looks increasingly like a couple trying to avoid justice and are probably guilty. If they are guilty then they have to face justice in the country that they committed the crime. It doesn't sound that bad if he is working in the prison library and the pay is unimportant. Why pay him at all?

Haystack

Just first of all remove from your thinking on this, anything to do with Guilt or Innocence.

Why is it I am bothered about their treatment?
Why is it that my wife is bothered about it it too?
Why has our MP, Andrea Leadsom, spent such a lot of her time trying to not just prevent their extradition but prevent their extradition in this way?
Why are all our neighbours up in arms about it?
Why is the local rag up in arms about it?

As I say, ignore Innocence and also ignore Guilt:

It seems to me, that you seem to agree with slapping a man and his wife in jail, separated and not allowed to communicate with each other, without any means to fund a defence and without a change of clothes or even a toothbrush keeping them locked up this way - all where the statistical outcome shows that the very best thing, in fact the only thing, they can do, to statistically guarantee bettering their circumstances, is to 'cop a plea'?

This very clever lawyer guy, also called 'Dunham'.

Could you kindly provide me some kind of proof that:

He is their son?

If you can do that, then I might see better where you could possibly be coming from and I might be tempted to warm to your view points a bit more.

Here are a few web sites:

http://www.lawandlegal.co.uk/solicitors/dunham-solicitors-milton-keynes-buckinghamshire/

http://www.dglsolicitors.co.uk/

http://www.consumeruk.co.uk/about.asp

http://www.dunhamlaw.co.uk/


"Solicitor Dean Dunham and famous client Freddie Starr"


"Famous Lawyer to the Stars, Dean Dunham"

Arranging the situation so that "copping a plea" is the only way out must do wonders for their conviction stats.


However alien the US system sounds to us, it done the trick where Hamza the hook was concerned, something our own system couldn't seem to do.

The lawyer business is a red herring. They should have been returned to the US to stand trial. If they can't afford a lawyer one will be appointed.

Stan

You don't half talk a load of bollocks , wounder were you picked that habit up from ?

There is plenty of evidence that Dean Dunham is the son of the Dunham couple. He looks like Paul Dunham, he has the same number of children as their son - 5 (an uncommon number). He owns businesses in Northampton and there are references across the internet to him being their son.

The only bollocks on here Aldgit is between your ears.

Here's some evidence but it isn't fact, it's merely the opinion of a couple of posters.

So now we have a poster called 'Haystack' on here; another poster, 'jimbob james'; another called 'mrgsmith':

http://www.legalcheek.com/2012/07/huge-follower-count-of-celebrity-solicitor-dean-dunham-plummets-as-fear-spreads-about-being-outed-for-buying-twitter-disciples/

So I guess that must confirm it then?

Come one Haystack! You say,

"There is plenty of evidence that Dean Dunham is the son of the Dunham couple. He looks like Paul Dunham, he has the same number of children as their son - 5 (an uncommon number). He owns businesses in Northampton and there are references across the internet to him being their son."

Paul and Sandra's five grandchildren are aged 1 through to 15.

Please give me some REAL evidence.

I think you are allowing this erroneous theory about this famous consumer lawyer of the same 'Dunham' name being their son, to substantiate an extremely negatively biased opinion on Paul's guilt. Now it might well be fact but I have not been able to find ANY proper evidence to support this supposition myself.

If this man, Paul Dunham, is actually innocent, then the travesty of his and his wife's situation is a disgrace.

Importantly, extradition laws from the UK to the USA need drastic and urgent alteration. This is the most important aspect of the whole thing. Indeed, I cannot understand how anyone could possibly be at all supportive of such unfair legislation.

I think this has exhausted my interest. They are charged with serious crimes for which there is evidence and are now awaiting trial. It seems like things have worked out pretty well so far.

"This has exhausted my interest."

If that is correct, and you point blank refuse to discuss your points further, then I will surely filter you. Pity really, I do like your right wing postings and you would be losing an ally.

"They are charged with serious crimes for which there is evidence and are now awaiting trial."

That is entirely correct. The topic is not this, neither is it their innocence or guilt. It is the totally unjust system, methodology and legalities of their extradition to the USA. Particularly so, when in comparison, we are failing to extradite people of foreign extraction back to their own countries, who have most certainly clearly broken serious laws and are undoubtedlyt involved in crimes like terrorism.

"It seems like things have worked out pretty well so far."

Again, you presume Guilt. You have no proof of it. Not one shred. You don't even have proof that Dean Dunham, a famous solicitor, is their son. And yet you choose to use this as a fact to try to persuade me and others that this must be a very strong reason why the Dunhams are Guilty.

This is why, I am coming round to not bothering too much as to whether to totally blank out what you have to say, if you refuse to continue to debate the unfairness of their extradition.

I don't presume guilt, but you are sure they are innocent. They are your neighbours so you believe them. The police, a grand jury and an FBI investigation all believe there is sufficient evidence to charge them. This is three separate sets of people looking at the evidence. They may be innocent but need to be sent back to the US to stand trial.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE INNOCENT!

I AM NOT SURE WHETHER THEY ARE GUILTY!

They may need to be made to face their accusers in a court of law. I do agree.

Lots of people, including me and my family, the MP Andrea Leadsom, and many more people too, all seem to feel that the extradition of the Dunhams in this manner is unjust and unfair. Your resistance to comment on just the manner and terms of their extradition seems to indicate very clearly that you agree with HOW they were extradited.

It disgusts me that you feel that just because they have been extradited, that there is no smoke without fire, and so that proves to you that they must be guilty!

Don't you feel, that to others, such logic is possibly pathetic?