When are the Great British Public going to wake up and realise how inequitable this Act is-we seem powerless to influence this Government and we elected them to act in our best interests-some chance

H Matthews, Egham, Surrey

They were promised a fair trial in America This does not sound like one If they were tried in this country these people would be made to testify Bring them back to this country for a fair trial. They are British Citizens and deserve a trial on British soil.

Audrey Marchant, Beckley, East Sussex

Gordon Brown should rescind the one way extradition agreement with the USA. It makes no sense for Britain to allow the US to extradite British citizens to face trials and imprisonment when the UK can not do the same in reverse. America rides rough shod over most other countries. It is time that Britain stood up to them. Good or indeed special relationships are about give and take. At the moment Britain always gives and America always takes. This is not the basis for a strong ongoing special relationship.

Ray Grainger, Farnham, United Kingdom

I quite agree with John Smith in Berlin. I would like to leave Britain and renounce my citizenship. I think Blair has sold Britain's citizens down the river with this one-sided Extradition Treaty and it is a national scandal.
I just wonder how many more arrests and extraditions and of probably high profile people (possibly very close to Nu Labour) it will take for Parliament to come to its senses and repeal this awful Act.
And it seems there is no escape within the EU either because now the Pan-European arrest warrant I assume enables the US to get you from anywhere in the EU.
What is going on in the UK??

Derrick, Guildford, UK

Mr. Smith from Berlin. The point is not about whether they lived in Texas, but that their alleged illegal corporate crime brought harm to American shareholders. Europe in general has a very lax attitude to corporate/white collar crime, in part perhaps because shareholder culture in Europe is much weaker. America sees corporate crime as much more insidious and sinister and it can harm so many people in such a wide range. And so they act very tough on white collar crime.

Sous, Bristol, England

I wonder why Johnny Cameron the RBS chief executive of corporate markets preferred the moniker 'the Enron Three' rather than 'the NatWest Three'? Has even he forgotton that the 'victim' in this supposed crime is Nat West?

And despite the NatWest Three asking NatWest on dozens of occasions to prosecute them if they've done something wrong, NatWest has never done so. Oh, and should we also assume the CPS, SFO and FSA all got it wrong? They also looked at the case and have come to the same conclusion - nothing inappropriate happened.

Now tell me that it's fair and right that the US can over-ride these facts and take British citizens over to their country to face trial?

I'm sure the majority of the 35 current and former employees are battling with their morals at the moment as they know they could be of help to these guys. But who can blame them for not going over? A US court of law is the last place you want to be whether you're the accused or a witness. Which clearly suitsRBS

Adam Watts, Hove, East Sussex

I wonder why Johnny Cameron the RBS chief executive of corporate markets preferred the moniker 'the Enron Three' rather than 'the NatWest Three'? Has even he forgotton that the 'victim' in this supposed crime is Nat West?

And despite the NatWest Three asking NatWest on dozens of occasions to prosecute them if they've done something wrong, NatWest has never done so. Oh, and should we also assume the FSA got it wrong? They also looked at the case and have come to the same conclusion - nothing inappropriate happened.

Now tell me that it's fair and right that the US can over-ride these facts and take British citizens over to their country to face trial?

I'm sure the majority of the 35 current and former employees are battling with their morals at the moment as they know they could be of help to these guys. But who can blame them for not going over? A US court of law is the last place you want to be whether you're the accused or a witness. Which clearly suits RBS

Adam Watts, Hove, East Sussex

The joy of being innocent of any wrong doing means that you have the best most honest PR you could wish for and all for FREE.

There is no 10%

Julie, London,

From what I undersand from this nebulous proceeding, these three British individuals did not commit any crime according to British law. Therefore, why, why, why are they on trial in the US? What does it say about the US legal system that even defense witnesess are scared to travel there? As usual, the americans act as a gung-ho law unto themselves. The EU needs to pull together and fight this monster.

Shane, Guildford, England

While faffing around with their PR agency, there is now nobody left for the NW3 to testify against.

They were tee'ed up to nail Fastow, but Fastow's case is concluded. And he will now testify against them.

The Feds were never going to give up. Their resources are limitless.

Moral: don't fight battles you can't win. Go to America, finger who they tell you to, do your sentence, pay the fine and get home.

Now Giles and Gary are going to face the full force. I don't know if they'll be deported to serve their sentence. Hope so.

Simon Park, Hong Kong,

I wonder why Johnny Cameron the RBS chief executive of corporate markets preferred the moniker 'the Enron Three' rather than 'the NatWest Three'? Has even he forgotton that the 'victim' in this supposed crime is Nat West?

And despite the NatWest Three asking NatWest on dozens of occasions to prosecute them if they've done something wrong, NatWest has never done so. Oh, and should we also assume the CPS, FSA & FSO all got it wrong? They also looked at the case and have come to the same conclusion - nothing inappropriate happened.

Now tell me that it's fair and right that the US can over-ride these facts and take British citizens over to their country to face trial?

I'm sure the majority of the 35 current and former employees are battling with their morals at the moment as they know they could be of help to these guys. But who can blame them for not going over? A US court of law is the last place you want to be whether you're the accused or a witness. Which clearly suits RBS

Adam Watts, Hove, East Sussex

These three men have hired expensive PR firms and expensive lawyers to represent them. They have stage managed press and television appearances and made rhetorical and fatuous statements about British law and the British Government.

Appeals to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights all concluded that the three men had a case to answer in the US courts. And to cap it all, Andrew Fastow, already convicted for his part in the same fraud, has agreed to testify against them. In addition, 35 of 36 of their former colleagues will not testify in their defence.

We are all innocent until proven guilty in court, but am I missing something here?

I think we should save our sympathies for both the Enron and the RBS shareholders who were defrauded by this scam.

Donovan Wright, Reading, Berkshire

These men are being used as scapegoats by a corrupt system and have been grossly let down by the Blair government in allowing the extradition in the first place.
Perhaps if RBS was opened up to the same level of scrutiny we'd be discussing the Royal Bank 3000.
Get these men home and allow them to defend the allegations against them in the British courts where they might just be afforded a fair trial.
There isn't the remotest possibility of that in Houston.
Allen, London

allen leitch, London, England

In answer to Kerry Livermore's comments.

These men wanted to be tried in Britain to give them a fair chance to prove their innocence. As UK citizens extradited to the US it is much more difficult for them to mount their defence, the latest news re the problems with their potential witnesses highlights this.

Dominic Leonard, Hereford,

Maybe they are guilty, maybe not, but the presumption of innocence has been left mugged and bloodied by the roadside in this case. The fact is that the three have been extradited without the US authorities having to provide evidence that a crime has been committed, and without the alleged victim of the crime, Natwest, making a complaint, despite having every opportunity to do so.

Although the Labour government has signed away its citizens' rights in this shameful fashion, the US has not seen fit to do the same, and will never do so. One more piece of evidence, if any were needed, that Blair is Bush' s poodle.

Martin, London,

"they are not the first and will not be the last to have made a massive profit through what seemed at the time an honest deal."

Come on Mr Stephen Cameron. They knew this was not an 'honest deal' and the e mails exchanged between themselves verify that.

Simon Park, hk,

It is understandable why potential witnesses are reluctant to go to the USA. Who knows, they may themselves be detained for no apparent reasons.

lewis, London, UK

Thank God the Americans have a more robust attitude to white collar crime than Britain. They wanted to be tried in Britain because they knew that if convicted they would be given short sentences like the Guiness lot, and then sent to open prisons because they were gentlemen. The Americans judge on the basis of the crime, not the class of the criminal.

kerry livermore, London, England,

My understanding is that the rule for the US to intervene in any financial irregularity is if any monies from that company pass through the USA. In practice this generally means that most companies are legacy required to also comply with EU regulations and US regulations which sometimes conflict.

The reason most people would not want to help in the defence is that it will require them to be in the US and there is no garantee that they themselves will not be held for trial.

The Enron scandal was created by US citizens, supported by US companies and ultimately the US government want to put the blame on someone not in the US. This is unfair and these three will never in a million years get a fair trial.

Joseph Kellie, Edinburgh, Scotland

Anyone commenting on this case should realise that these three guys contacted the British Financial Authorities to request advice on the deal before it was done and were given the all clear to go ahead. Of course the reputation of Travers Smith is compromised by representing RBS and potential defence witnesses. Who exactly is putting pressure on these potential witnesses to refuse to testify? And any other people involved should also be terrified that they too will be extradited. Obviously the UK government will extradite any old person that the US would like to be extradited. RBS should drop this case and the NatWest (not Enron) three should be brought back to the UK. If a crime was committed it was committed here in the UK and the extradition was flawed. Those who comment on the money made by Bermingham, Darby and Mulgrew should remember that they are not the first and will not be the last to have made a massive profit through what seemed at the time an honest deal.

Stephen Cameron, London,

Disgraceful! Blair has blood on his hands. This is the true Blair legacy !!! British citizens rights flushed down the toilet while Blair panda's to George Bush to promote his international status. Will Gordon Brown put British citizens first?

Simmo, Melksham, England

The fabulous thing about the British legal system is that if the NatWest Three went to court and were found guilty of dodgy dealings, they would go to jail. If they convinced the court they were innocent, they would go free.

So what do we do? We send them to America for justice and then fail to ensure they have access to the witnesses and evidence they consider important to to their defence. UK citizens + UK crime + UK victim = US justice. What sort of legal system is that?

Michael, London, UK

I find it quite hilarious to see the lefty liberals, who in other circumstances would be frothing at the mouth to decry these embezzling fat cat city boys, instead leaping to their defence because it is yet another chance to take a pot shot at America. I must remember when I embezzle my next million to allocate 10% of the funds to a good PR agency.

Matthew, London,

I wonder why Johnny Cameron the RBS chief executive of corporate markets preferred the moniker 'the Enron Three' rather than 'the NatWest Three'? Has even he forgotton that the 'victim' in this supposed crime is Nat West?

And despite the NatWest Three asking NatWest on dozens of occasions to prosecute them if they've done something wrong, NatWest has never done so. Oh, and should we also assume the FSA got it wrong? They also looked at the case and have come to the same conclusion - nothing inappropriate happened.

Now tell me that it's fair and right that the US can over-ride these facts and take British citizens over to their country to face trial?

I'm sure the majority of the 35 current and former employees are battling with their morals at the moment as they know they could be of help to these guys. But who can blame them for not going over? A US court of law is the last place you want to be whether you're the accused or a witness. Which clearly suits RBS.

Adam Watts, Hove, East Sussex

How little we know about our outwardly respectable banks! How risible is the assertion by Stephen Paget-Brown that it is absolutely clear that there is no question of there being a conflict of interest.' in RBS advising the witnesses. Is he laughing as he says this ? What credulous fools he must think we all are. It seems that the NatWest Three are trapped in a very nasty spider's web. Once upon a time banks were there to help the ordinary person - now I'm laughing!

Berna Fitzgerald, Bristol, England

THIS IS A DISGRACE!

How can RBS represent all of these individuals and no-one wants to speak (fishy)!! If these men had their trial in the UK they could subpoena witnesses. RBS are supposed to be the victim! From the outset they have done nothing more than hide and appear that no crime has been committed. Surely a bank suspicious of fraud would immediately press charges against the perpetrator - if you go over your overdraft or bounce a mortgage payment one is soon threaten with legal action. RBS should surely be responsible for protecting their former employees rather than leaving them to hang out and dry.

jules, battle,

This issues proves the fears that Gary, Giles and David had, that they would not get a fair trial in the US, these people potentially have evidence that needs to be heard, it may help either side but it is important. It is very suspicious that the same lawyers represent the both the bank and the people, especially those who no longer work for RBS, especially when it is in RBS interest to distance itself from the whole Enron affair.

Jonathan Mulgrew, Hampshire, UK

Outrageous that the British government should allow these guys to be tried in USAs courts. We are now merely a colony of America which is run by a lesser mortal than a monkey. I understand why the witnesses will not come forward, to face potential prison in the USA and judging by that countries laws no one has anything better to expect than unfair treatment as in Guantanamo Bay!! What government betrays its citizens by allowing another to treat them this way and send them out of the country for justice!? After all the Labour personnel have their salaries paid by these very citizens. And now Blair will move to his million pound pension at the end of this month. What justice is this?

R Annelise E Grimsey , Oslo,

"Nobody will testify in my defence"

Sorry John Smith in Berlin. The fact that nobody wants to speak in your defence does not mean you are 'not guilty' and should be let free.

If that was the case then all kinds of felons would be released simply because they couldn't (probably for good reason) find anyone to say they were innocent.

moses, Dawlish,

We do not take white collar crime seriously here in the UK; the US does. This is evident from the sentences handed down in connection with Enron. It is in the interests of justice for them to face trial in the US therefore where, if found guilty, they are likely to receive sentences proportionate to their crime.

Paul, Bolton, UK

No, the 'whole point is'.....are they mysteriously five million quid richer than they ought to have been given their Nat West salaries and other earnings.

Somehow this whole issue has become about shopping for the best legal forum when it should be about whether a dodgy deal was done.

Simon Park, Hong Kong,

this is just completely outrageous and completely suspicious. One day real justice will be served, and I pray it is not too late for Giles David and Gary.

tony hickman, bath, uk

The Enron 3 have the best public relations that lots of money can buy. Still, there is a mountain of evidence against them so why feel sorry for criminals ( of course innocent until convicted). Perhaps the other workers don't believe their innocence as highly as their expensive PR firm.

Ashley Simpson, Torquay, England

The UK was too naive when they agreed to the new extradition agreement, they thought it was to fight terrorism but the Americans are using it for everything but.

Nick, Miami, Florida

If they are not allowed a proper defence, they should be returned to the uk at once. The laws in the uk and us are still different and they probably did not act illegally. They are millions of people who in europe break the laws of texas every day. But the whole point is , is that they do not live or work in texas, and therefore should not be subject to texas law. The uk has really let its subjects and it citizens down. They should not allow extradiction for any crime and should be tried in the ik. Do what russia does at leats it sems to protect its citizens from foreign intervention.
I would not do business in the uk or live there now. they are the 52nd state.

John smith, Berlin, Germany