4 ms·

Theresa May had partially and only partially redeemed herself in my eyes. I was so disappointed by the Richard O'Dwyer case that I didn't think her capable of a

by harel 14y ago

Theresa May had partially and only partially redeemed herself in my eyes. I was so disappointed by the Richard O'Dwyer case that I didn't think her capable of any moral decision. One more move Mrs May, and I, and many more will believe you are a thinking human being.

nicholassmith 14y ago
She's a thinking political creature. There'd have been enough outrage (especially from the DM) that she'd have never weathered the storm.
mibbitier 14y ago
Her hands were probably tied at the time, due to Abu Hamza etc which has now been dealt with. I fully expect her to clarify the position for Richard O'Dwyer soon and can't see him ever being extradited.
- harel 14y ago
  I hope this is the case. It does make sense considering we're Post-Hamza now.
ed_blackburn 14y ago
I think this is all about the publicity. Otherwise she would have done it sooner. Ironic too that she cites the European Court of Human Rights as to the reasoning, whereas as only yesterday she was lambasting European Courts and legislation for stealing our sovereignty. I find her insidious and duplicitous. When did we last have a Home Secretary who wasn't a careerist authoritarian? Nevertheless I strongly suspect that today a life has been saved and hopefully from now on we can apply rationale to our extraditions.
toyg 14y ago
"Moral decisions"? In modern British politics? Unless you're talking about Robin Cook or David Davies, it's really hard to find any "moral" motivation behind political moves, and this is no exception. This was an easy and popular choice to take. McKinnon was not a threat, and the US "World Police" stance has weakened a lot since the GWB days. Even better, it's an election year in the US in which an incumbent President has to motivate a disillusioned left wing; he really doesn't need the backlash following a potentially unpopular extradition. The point had already been made: subjects of the Empire (which Western Europeans people are, de facto, especially if living in Britain) who dare attacking US military infrastructure, even in jest, will be hunted, and their lives made miserable. Whether they're actually going to be sent to Gitmo is irrelevant in practice: McKinnon's life is forever compromised on many, many levels. So, in practice, Obama(/H.Clinton) doesn't give a rat's ass about McKinnon, and the Coalition has enough problems as it is, there's a good chance to score some cheap political capital, so why pass on it? Add to that the recent announcement about opting out of some EU laws, and you can see that May is positioning herself as friendly towards the right wing, classically "individualist" Tory faction which is currently threatening to "tea party" Cameron, and all without spending any money (which, in government, is always the best sort of action). I don't think there's anything "moral" in that; it's just another day in UK politics.

by harel 14y ago

nicholassmith 14y ago

She's a thinking political creature. There'd have been enough outrage (especially from the DM) that she'd have never weathered the storm.

mibbitier 14y ago

Her hands were probably tied at the time, due to Abu Hamza etc which has now been dealt with. I fully expect her to clarify the position for Richard O'Dwyer soon and can't see him ever being extradited.

harel 14y ago
I hope this is the case. It does make sense considering we're Post-Hamza now.

ed_blackburn 14y ago

I think this is all about the publicity. Otherwise she would have done it sooner. Ironic too that she cites the European Court of Human Rights as to the reasoning, whereas as only yesterday she was lambasting European Courts and legislation for stealing our sovereignty. I find her insidious and duplicitous. When did we last have a Home Secretary who wasn't a careerist authoritarian? Nevertheless I strongly suspect that today a life has been saved and hopefully from now on we can apply rationale to our extraditions.

toyg 14y ago

"Moral decisions"? In modern British politics? Unless you're talking about Robin Cook or David Davies, it's really hard to find any "moral" motivation behind political moves, and this is no exception. This was an easy and popular choice to take. McKinnon was not a threat, and the US "World Police" stance has weakened a lot since the GWB days. Even better, it's an election year in the US in which an incumbent President has to motivate a disillusioned left wing; he really doesn't need the backlash following a potentially unpopular extradition. The point had already been made: subjects of the Empire (which Western Europeans people are, de facto, especially if living in Britain) who dare attacking US military infrastructure, even in jest, will be hunted, and their lives made miserable. Whether they're actually going to be sent to Gitmo is irrelevant in practice: McKinnon's life is forever compromised on many, many levels. So, in practice, Obama(/H.Clinton) doesn't give a rat's ass about McKinnon, and the Coalition has enough problems as it is, there's a good chance to score some cheap political capital, so why pass on it? Add to that the recent announcement about opting out of some EU laws, and you can see that May is positioning herself as friendly towards the right wing, classically "individualist" Tory faction which is currently threatening to "tea party" Cameron, and all without spending any money (which, in government, is always the best sort of action). I don't think there's anything "moral" in that; it's just another day in UK politics.