Talk:NatWest Three

message: Article needs major changes after the guilty plea.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by John a s (talk • contribs) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: The article appears written from the point of view that the three ought not to be extradited. It does not mention the point of view that as the crime with which they are charged was largely planned in the United States in order to benefit a Texas-based corporation, it is reasonable to have the trial in Texas. It may also be in order to mention that the United States has a strong legal system that is actually quite effective at prosecuting business fraud. David | Talk 14:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first point hyas been inserted into the article.  The second I think is fairly well accepted and understood by all sides.  POV tag removed. --Michael C. Price talk 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Point of view article

message: The text:
:When the extradition law was passed in the wake of September 11 the UK government stated that it was only to be used in the war against terrorism. 
has been removed by User:Dbiv with the tag this is not true, yet this has been widely reported in the media. What is the evidence that it is false? --Michael C. Price talk 19:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one that took it out, but as a general comment, there is no requirement to "prove it false", anyone wishing to insert information needs to prove it verifiable (not necessarily the same thing as true), as per WP:V. If it's been widely reported, it should be straightforward to find a citation to verify it. Regards, MartinRe 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put it make in with a  tag.  --Michael C. Price talk 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually interesting to look back at newspaper reports from December 2003 when it was slipped through Parliament.  People were warning then that it would be used against businessmen (we all know the Americans are more interested in imprisoning businessmen than terrorists).  There were a series of letters warning against how it depended solely on identification of the suspect with no evidence needed.  --jmb 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool.  We should note in both articles the government claim that the standards of evidence are more-or-less equivilant..  80.168.29.18 15:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that last remark refers to the British Government, we all know the reputation of the current British Government for honesty.  I would be inclined to listen to any source apart from the current British Government and most do seem to have quite different opinions on the Act.  If you go back to the newspapers from December 2003 there were lots of warning then about has been shown to have actually happened with the Act.--jmb 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The early execution of this treaty, for a purpose for which it was clearly not intended,  is an example of Tony Blair being the "poodle" of President Bush.  Employment of the treaty before ratifying it themselves is indicative of the contempt the American Government has for British opinion.  This stand point was further substantiated by the public parading of "the three" clad needlessly, and vindictively,  in chains entering a Texan court house - a sight many Europeans find abhorrent. Giano | talk 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assurance law would only to be used against terrorists

message: This is old news and hasnt been in thepress for a month. Whivch is why I removed the notice. I am surprised someone put it back when this news is obviously now old. El Rojo 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the article:  the men retained lawyers on August 12 2006 and a trial date is expected to be set in September (i.e. next month).  Developments are happenning all the time.  That would seem to make it current.  I'm reinserting the tag. Grover cleveland 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a page anywhere that tells us when to use the current tag and when not to? Grover cleveland 22:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: This section currently summarizes the main arguments of the supporters as follows:
:The alleged crime was allegedly committed by British citizens living in Britain against a British company based in London, the nation's capital city. Therefore, any resulting criminal case fell under British legal and territorial jurisdiction and should be tried by a British court.
This passage is unsupported by citations:  I'm not sure whether this argument really makes any sense.  If the Three had broken into a branch of NatWest in Houston and made off with 12 million dollars from the overnight safe, it would still be an alleged crime  "committed by British citizens living in Britain against a British company based in London, the nation's capital city" -- but surely the supporters wouldn't still be claiming that the US had no jurisdiction to prosecute them?  It would be much better to have a real quote from one of their leading supporters who, I'm sure, can make a better reasoned argument than this. Grover cleveland 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign of support in Britain

message: This wikipedia page is highly biased in favour of the natwest three. There is no analysis of the crime committed and the harm experienced by Enron investors and employees. It is clear from most news reports and indeed common sense that there is a case to answer by these people.
:Well if you can find sources to prove your case Go for it! Certainly my perception was that they hired a good publicity team and got a lot of support just before the extradition which then backfired on them somewhat asit became clear that there was reasonable evidence that they had committed fraud, SqueakBox 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The harm wasn't suffered by Enron investors and employees: it was suffered by NatWest investors and employees.  Enron didn't lose out from the deal.  The page has a reasonably detailed description of the alleged crime -- if you want to add more details that are supported by references please do so. Grover cleveland 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental bias 

message: According to BBC News the three have offered a plea of Guilty to the charge of Wire Fraud. Should be added to the article. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7116410.stm
Malbolge (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guilty plea 

message: We can say the Natwest3 claim it is controversial and ref it as being seen as controversial; but to claim as unsourced fact that it is controversial is POV as there is no universakl consensus that this act is controversial, just the opinion of some. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but that makes no sense. Controversy itself is not a POV, but the result of conflicting POVs. Significant debate about whether things are just or unjust make things controversial, not the validity of of any claim about a perceived injustice.  - See dictionary definition of controversy "A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views." Jooler (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial

message: I am concerned about the use of the Friends Extradited website as a source for this article.  This website does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources.  I've tried to find alternative sources where available, but some claims are currently unsupported by any other source:
* in March 2002 the FSA "concluded that no further action was necessary against the Three"
* before arrest warrants were issued, "the Three made themselves available to the US Authorites to assist with the case"
* they "were never contacted" before the indictment was issued.
I'd appreciate anyone who has the time to find other sources for these claims, or they may have to be removed.  Cheers, Grover cleveland (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are looking for other sources as part of our project. However, why is the web-site any less reliable than say the various newspaper reports? The website makes it clear they have no position on their innocence or guilt. Most of the newspapers seem to have missed the true nature of the crime. We have already established a seeming 'bias' between the Guardian on the one hand (anti) and the Telgraph (pro) on the other - although there are some articles inconsistant with that view. Can anyone shed light on why this might be - I am not familiar with these newspapers ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1983 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reliable source" is a term of art on Wikipedia.  It is defined at this link.  Even in the absence of such a policy, the fact that the website was set up by the Three's PR team, and even gives Melanie Riley (PR supremo on behalf of the Three) as its contact info would be sufficient to taint its objectivity.  Grover cleveland (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Friends Extradited as a Source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on NatWest Three. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111116234944/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200607/ai_n17178795/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200607/ai_n17178795
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717080734/http://www.friendsextradited.org/ to http://www.friendsextradited.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NatWest Three. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=127942&d=122&h=24&f=46
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717080734/http://www.friendsextradited.org/ to http://www.friendsextradited.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on NatWest Three. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717080734/http://www.friendsextradited.org/ to http://www.friendsextradited.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified