Blunkett's proposals to remove human rights.

[Alan Walker]

Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a reduced
burden of proof, or am I missing something ?

If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with the
police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

[Michael Saunby]

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a reduced
burden of proof, or am I missing something ?
If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with the
police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

I guess he simply lacks the nerve to implement "shoot to kill".

Anyone have the stats on the proportion of shoot to kill errors vs. send to
prison errors (with or without jury)??

Michael Saunby

[amon]

When the internment debate was raging back before the IRA ceasefire, I saw
solid evidence that not a single guilty person had been locked up or a crime
prevented that could not have been done without internment .

Just as well did not shoot them.
Now of course the Yanks are no longer preaching Human rights at us.
The fact is in my view that we have short memories but history shows us that
when you take away human rights for any reason you do a bad days work

Post by Michael Saunby

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a reduced
burden of proof, or am I missing something ?
If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with the
police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

I guess he simply lacks the nerve to implement "shoot to kill".
Anyone have the stats on the proportion of shoot to kill errors vs. send to
prison errors (with or without jury)??
Michael Saunby

[Steve Walker]

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a
reduced burden of proof, or am I missing something ?

No, it's even worse. He's suggesting trial without jury for anyone who
*might* be a terrorist in the opinion of our stunningly incompetent
intelligence services (and, in a homage to Kafka, this opinion may not
be challenged because it's secret).

[Alan Walker]

Post by Steve Walker

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a
reduced burden of proof, or am I missing something ?

No, it's even worse. He's suggesting trial without jury for anyone
who *might* be a terrorist in the opinion of our stunningly
incompetent intelligence services (and, in a homage to Kafka, this
opinion may not be challenged because it's secret).

Will this go through or will the people of this country be bright enough and
brave enough to do a poll tax on it ?

[Vigil]

Post by Alan Walker
Will this go through or will the people of this country be bright enough
and brave enough to do a poll tax on it ?

I don't think "the people" have any say in the matter.

[amon]

if you are right then we are faced with a very serious and very scary
situation and frankly I feel you probbaly are right.

I never believed that there was a majority in favour of war and in truth it
mattered a not a jot we attacked Iraq for whatever reason.

I thought that was the nearest I had ever seeen to Britain actually taking
part in politics since the student demos of the 70s but it all meant
nothing.
The fact that Blair escaped as he did is frankly shocking.

I don't believe nothing can be done in principal, but taking into acount
extreme voter apathy and presidential powers of a strong majority, probbaly
nothing can be done by the people to stop the remainder of our rights being
removed.

Ed

Post by Vigil

Post by Alan Walker
Will this go through or will the people of this country be bright enough
and brave enough to do a poll tax on it ?

I don't think "the people" have any say in the matter.
--
.

[Vigil]

Post by amon
I don't believe nothing can be done in principal, but taking into acount
extreme voter apathy and presidential powers of a strong majority,
probbaly nothing can be done by the people to stop the remainder of our
rights being removed.

The best a member of the public can do is become a prominent journalist
and, if you're lucky, write a 'controversial' article in a mainstream
publication, for once you have voted a government in power, you have
little say at all.

Standard disclaimers apply.

[Old Codger]

Post by Steve Walker

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a
reduced burden of proof, or am I missing something ?

No, it's even worse. He's suggesting trial without jury for anyone
who *might* be a terrorist in the opinion of our stunningly
incompetent intelligence services (and, in a homage to Kafka, this
opinion may not be challenged because it's secret).

After Hutton I am very reluctant to trust judges alone. The Government says
you are guilty therefore you must be. Go straight to jail, do not pass go,
do not collect £200.

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

[Grant Crozier]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:18:13 -0000, "Old Codger"

Post by Old Codger
After Hutton I am very reluctant to trust judges alone. The Government says
you are guilty therefore you must be. Go straight to jail, do not pass go,
do not collect £200.

Oh bloody hell not another do gooder who wants bloody criminals
treated like gods .
Grant .

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a reduced
burden of proof, or am I missing something ?

Well he is probably flying a kite to see just how far he can go (reversing
the burden of proof is the next step).

Sadly the justice system record on terrorism is very poor. The Guildford 4
(wholly innocent), Birmingham 6 (Sein Fein supporters maybe) and McGuire 7
(lapsed Catholics?) are some of the worst miscarraiges of justice in the
late 20th Century.

The Guildford 4 was the worst case, because not only were 4 unconnected
innocent young people locked up for years, but the real perpetrators were
able to carry on committing further attrocities.

Perhaps Blunkett should visit Saudi Arabia on his way back, where several
Brits were beaten into confessing to a alcohol dealers' turf war bombing
campaign, which was in fact fundamentalists attacking "decadent" westerners.
He could pick up some tips, and maybe even get to try out a scimitar in a
public execution... (might take him a few goes though).

Post by Alan Walker
If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with the
police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

Victims of injustice tend to hit back at the state that oppresses them.
Even the much revered Nelson Mandela used to blow up electricity pylons
(though not women and children).

Post by Alan Walker
--
Alan

[Grant Crozier]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:14:33 -0000, "Alan Walker"

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a reduced
burden of proof, or am I missing something ?
If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with the
police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

Ok then so you are yet another do gooder that this flaming country of
ours could quite happily do without.
Did the terrorist give a damn about the people in the WTC the other
year did they give a damn about the people on the train in Madrid the
other week did they give a damn about the people on the Pan Am 103
flight or the people of Lockerbie .
So why should we afford any justice to these ANIMALS I wouldn't like
you to meet up with any relatives of the people these ANIMALS have
killed !!!!!!!!!!.
Grant .

[Steve Walker]

Post by Grant Crozier
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:14:33 -0000, "Alan Walker"

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a
reduced burden of proof, or am I missing something ?
If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with
the police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

Did the terrorist give a damn about .....

You're missing the point - these reductions of civil rights apply to
*alleged* & *suspected* offenders, not to persons who have been proven
to be terrorists. We should of course be tough on terrorism, but
that's not the same thing as reducing the legal protection available to
everyone living in the UK.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Grant Crozier
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:14:33 -0000, "Alan Walker"

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a reduced
burden of proof, or am I missing something ?
If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with the
police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

Ok then so you are yet another do gooder that this flaming country of
ours could quite happily do without.
Did the terrorist give a damn about the people in the WTC the other
year did they give a damn about the people on the train in Madrid the
other week did they give a damn about the people on the Pan Am 103
flight or the people of Lockerbie .
So why should we afford any justice to these ANIMALS I wouldn't like
you to meet up with any relatives of the people these ANIMALS have
killed !!!!!!!!!!.
Grant .

Even with juries the record was pretty poor - Birmingham 6, McGuire 7 and
Guildford 4. In the last case the defendants were totally innocent and
unconnected with any Irish cause, moreover the Met' obsession with proving
their guilt as opposed finding the guilty meant that the real bombers
(eventually captured in the Balcombe Street siege) were able to carry on
their atrocities.

Similarly the Saudi's (whose justice system skips juries etc.) sentenced a
number of Brits to death for what they claimed was a bootleggers turf war.
In reality it was fundies bombing the shebeens...

Do try and remember that a principle purpose of justice is to punish the
guilty NOT the innocent.

[Martin Oswin]

9/11 that justifed alot but who was it did it?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm

Post by Grant Crozier
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:14:33 -0000, "Alan Walker"

Post by Alan Walker
Is he seriously suggesting trial without jury for terrorist and a reduced
burden of proof, or am I missing something ?
If that really is the case then I for one would never cooperate with the
police to hand anybody over to a justice system like that.

Ok then so you are yet another do gooder that this flaming country of
ours could quite happily do without.
Did the terrorist give a damn about the people in the WTC the other
year did they give a damn about the people on the train in Madrid the
other week did they give a damn about the people on the Pan Am 103
flight or the people of Lockerbie .
So why should we afford any justice to these ANIMALS I wouldn't like
you to meet up with any relatives of the people these ANIMALS have
killed !!!!!!!!!!.
Grant .