Justice is blind in Britain

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 7, 2003, 12:34

Reprinted from the blog.

Today's question- why is Home Secretary David Blunkett such a monstrously incompetent, bulging sack of monkey ****? Let's check the news of the day. The Sunday Times reports that Mr Blunkett is attempting to block the repatriation of British captives at Guantanamo Bay, on the grounds that they would have to be released in Britain.

The reason why they would have to be released is that there isn't sufficient evidence to convict them. Now at some point in your life you may have encountered the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"- just how valuable a concept do you feel that is? David Blunkett is blocking the repatriation of British citizens on the grounds that he thinks they won't be convicted in a British criminal court. In other words, he is declaring a lack of faith in the British judicial system's ability to administer justice.

Bear in mind that he's the Home Secreatary. Yup- that's right. He's in charge of the British judicial system. Isn't that somewhat akin to the Pope declaring himself to be an atheist? Or George W Bush whipping off his mask to reveal the grinning beardy face of Osama Bin Laden? It's off the scale, isn't it? "Yes, I've been in charge of the British judicial system since 2001 and to be perfectly honest I'd rather leave British citizens locked up without charge abroad, in the knowledge that mild forms of torture have been approved for use on them, rather than give them a fair trial in a British Crown Court".

It's unbelievable. Why isn't he publicly flagellating himself while screaming for forgiveness for being an utter failure? I live in the hope that he's mistakenly thought a large studded dildo was in fact his Braille transcription of their custody records, and has read erroneous messages of national security warnings into the silicone skin of a "Magnum Anal Invader". The thought that he's actually not making some monstrous error is too scary to contemplate- we'd have to conclude the the person in charge of Britain's law enforcement has absolutely no belief in Habaeus Corpus and the rule of law and is prepared to bypass those concepts. Terrifying, isn't it?

DinoDoc · December 7, 2003, 13:34

How rare is it for British Cabinet members to disagree with the PM in this fashion? It was my understanding that Blair and others had been working to get the British citizens handed over to them for sometime.

Drogue · December 7, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How rare is it for British Cabinet members to disagree with the PM in this fashion?

Pretty common actually, though usually on detail points only. Brown and Blair are notorious for disagreements. Blunkett is more totalitarian than most Labourites though, with ID cards and his beliefs on the legal system.

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was my understanding that Blair and others had been working to get the British citizens handed over to them for sometime.

That is what I had thought, though I don't think they said it in so many words

Drogue · December 7, 2003, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
"Yes, I've been in charge of the British judicial system since 2001 and to be perfectly honest I'd rather leave British citizens locked up without charge abroad, in the knowledge that mild forms of torture have been approved for use on them, rather than give them a fair trial in a British Crown Court".

A sad day when Blair still supports such a totalitarian fool.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
It's unbelievable. Why isn't he publicly flagellating himself while screaming for forgiveness for being an utter failure?

That I would pay to see

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I live in the hope that he's mistakenly thought a large studded dildo was in fact his Braille transcription of their custody records, and has read erroneous messages of national security warnings into the silicone skin of a "Magnum Anal Invader".

And that I really wouldn't

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The thought that he's actually not making some monstrous error is too scary to contemplate- we'd have to conclude the the person in charge of Britain's law enforcement has absolutely no belief in Habaeus Corpus and the rule of law and is prepared to bypass those concepts. Terrifying, isn't it?

Yes. Why is he still there, he puts his foot in it, trys to get through really unpopular policies, from tuition fees to ID cards. Why does Blair stand by him?

DinoDoc · December 7, 2003, 14:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How rare is it for British Cabinet members to disagree with the PM in this fashion? It was my understanding that Blair and others had been working to get the British citizens handed over to them for sometime.

Interesting. This brings up a two part question for me.

1) Considering this looks like a mighty big issue to disagree with the PM on, how likely is it that the Home Sec. will be fired?

2) How hard is such a thing to do?

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 7, 2003, 15:31

To be brutally honest, I don't think Blair disagrees. He's certainly done very little in the way of repatriating them. A few vaguely encouraging noises amount to next to nothing when his deputy is actively blocking such measures.

If Blair had really wanted the British suspects repatriated and dealt with in British courts, it could have been done months ago.

Verres · December 7, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Why does Blair stand by him?

It means the public can direct their hatred towards Blunkett instead of dear old Tony of course. Always handy to have someone really unpopular in the cabinet - that way he can intorduce a load of unwise policies but claim they were Blunketts idea and he doesnt agree. Therefore, Blair gets what he want, and still remains popular.

Drogue · December 7, 2003, 15:52

I agree with Laz. The PM says he want's them back, but in PMs question time on it, he didn't answer when probed about what he was doing, other than the obligatory "he cares about them as British Citizens" thing.

Drogue · December 7, 2003, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Verres
It means the public can direct their hatred towards Blunkett instead of dear old Tony of course. Always handy to have someone really unpopular in the cabinet

He's got Prescott. What more does he need in unpopularity

Solly · December 7, 2003, 16:13

He also has Clare Short and had Galloway.

Drogue · December 7, 2003, 16:45

Well. I wouldn't say Blair had Clair Short or Galloway because of their unpopularity, more to show that he accepts people from all parts of the party. He has to try to appease some of the left wingers while he tries to put through foundation hospitals and tuition fees.

Solly · December 7, 2003, 16:57

Left-wingers, if we assume that they are in favour of reducing inequality, should be in favour of introducing higher fees for a specialised post-18 education. Ceteris paribus, this will free up additional government funds for investment in pre-16 education, where the real problem lies with inequality of education. Most poor people drop out of the education system before A-levels anyway, due to the shite performance of inner-city schools and - a more upcoming problem due to relocation of persistent offenders to fringe parts of cities - some suburban schools.

Drogue · December 7, 2003, 17:30

But people who drop out before 16 because of ability, not money. Left wingers want everyone to be able to go as far with education as they wish, without money being an issue. Therefore, the whole thing should be free, so that no-one is disadvantaged because of money, but universities should be selective on ability.

Bereta_Eder · December 7, 2003, 17:33

Yes it is. Well not blind but very close to fascist. The antiterrorist law in particular can be appealed in any court of the world. It's so fareaching.

Ned · December 7, 2003, 17:42

Laz, what crime would they be charged with in Britain and what element of proof is allegedly lacking?

Bereta_Eder · December 7, 2003, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Reprinted from the blog.

Today's question- why is Home Secretary David Blunkett such a monstrously incompetent, bulging sack of monkey ****? Let's check the news of the day. The Sunday Times reports that Mr Blunkett is attempting to block the repatriation of British captives at Guantanamo Bay, on the grounds that they would have to be released in Britain.

And the answer to that question is very simple if you view the UK for what it really is: an american lapdog bending over to the wishes of its master. Obviously the US doesnt want these people released. But there has to be a formula found so that they will stay where they are. An excuse has to be made, and that's it. Granted it's such a stupid excuse (since it basically attacks the brit justice system - which for an outsider is a positive thing) but something had to be said. What was chosen to be said simply reflects the intellect of him who spoke it. The case is simple and it entails keeping them in the US for whatever reason and the UK is happily complining, on the sideline giving this truely amazing excuse. hilariously autoinficting insult to injury, if you think that's injury which i do.

Bereta_Eder · December 7, 2003, 18:06

In short, in some cases, justice and politics are, unfortunately, interweaved with eachother. This is one of them. There is an answer however. Raise hell. Yep that's right, far reaching intimidating inferno. A similar case springs to mind concerning 17 November. When they arrested them one or two of them were going to be asked by the US to be expelled to America since they've killed american officials.

However if such a move was approvd by the greek government (which, less face it has much less power to resist to american requests - not to mention the countless shortcomings of the greek judicial system itself) so if such a move was approved there would literally be all hell breaking lose. You'd propably look at 17 November Reloaded too. So the US backed down, a wise compromise to safeguard the very volatile greekamerican ties as well.
So I guess if you want them returned you have to somehow fight for them. If you dont care, you can do nothing. "Fortunately" you dont have a government breathing antiamericanism down your neck for its own interests either, so doing nothing can be achieved much easier, i suppose.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 7, 2003, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Laz, what crime would they be charged with in Britain and what element of proof is allegedly lacking?

I don't know what they're specifically accused of. Presumably it would be offences involving conspiracy to commit terrorist acts (or possibly actually committing such acts) under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.

The burden of proof is identical to any other criminal charge under English criminal law- their guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

As to what element of proof is lacking? I've no idea. The stories I've read on the detained suspects usually revolve around identification- the suspects deny being Al-Qaidr members and/or being involved in criminal conspiracies. Therefore the authorities need to prove that they are, beyond reasonable doubt.

I can see no reason why they should not be formally charged and brought to trial in an English court. It's not as if our courts are considered flawed or suspect, after all. If their guilt cannot be proved but our powers that be still cannot agree with such a decision then they can be monitored by MI5. That's what we taxpayers pay the spooks for, after all.

Solly · December 7, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

But people who drop out before 16 because of ability, not money.

Are you totally sure of that? Want a few names..?

Quote:

Left wingers want everyone to be able to go as far with education as they wish, without money being an issue.

Interesting point.

"Without money being an issue" sounds somewhat vague though.

Are you referring to society as a whole? If so, "money" (ie, cost) definitely ought to be an issue. It's not good having the government taxing people thousands of pounds to provide for an unnecessary degree course, that would give very little earnings enhancement to the student and no benefit to society.

On the other hand, if you are referring to the individual, of course money should never be an issue. That's why I advocate - as the government does - payment of fees i) after graduation, and ii) when the graduate can afford to pay. If the fear of debt is an issue for the individual, then I put it to you that this individual doesn't have the merit to attend university. If one has the merit, one would concurrently be able to see that a £10k investment returning many times that is a sensible and efficient investment. In that sense, the introduction of tuition fees will keep out those afraid of debt and hence unworthy of a place on merit grounds.

There is certainly grounds for concern with regards to capital constraints for the student, but with encouragement to banks and funding support from the government when markets don't provide enough for students, this concern can be eliminated.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 7, 2003, 18:29

Take it to another thread. Tuition fees have no bearing on a discussion of the state of Habaeus Corpus.

Solly · December 7, 2003, 18:31

Indeed, if one looks at the average opportunity cost of attending university (around £30k for a 3 year course - potential earnings lost), and the rate of wage growth, the real cost of attending university has risen by more in the last five years than the £1.8k by which the government is proposing to raise tuition fees.

Solly · December 7, 2003, 18:32

This is the off-topic Laz.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · December 7, 2003, 18:40

This is not the Off-Topic thread, Spink.

Solly · December 7, 2003, 18:43

dp

Solly · December 7, 2003, 18:45

Then you'd best stop debating this hadn't you?

Bereta_Eder · December 7, 2003, 18:53

Out of general curiocity can I ask for how long they've been kept in Guntanamo if anyone knows?

CerberusIV · December 8, 2003, 08:01

Its funny how Blunkett is now seen as relatively right wing with his support for ID cards and so on when he was prominently identified with the "looney left" during his time as leader of Sheffield City Council. Are any of those "This is a nuclear free zone" roadsigns still in existence?

Presumably a civil justice system failing to get convictions would raise embarrassing questions about the military tribunals the US intends and which will find the detainees guilty?

Solly · December 8, 2003, 08:27

Surely this could also be looked at as a commendation of the American justice system, given that he is supposedly happy to leave the terrorists in the hands of the US.

Zevico · December 8, 2003, 08:31

I think that people like that, who would fight in the Taliban or something shouldn't be allowed any where near the public in general. It disturbs me that the same people who were in the Taliban still live in Afghanistan today and that this is seen as fine somehow.

CerberusIV · December 8, 2003, 09:12

It comes down to letting the little people go and trying to rehabilitate them somehow, otherwise you end up imprisoning or killing so many people it starts to look like genocide. The trick is getting hold of those who lead and instigate and dealing with them appropriately.

That is really the problem here because there doesn't seem to be much evidence that any of the detainees at Guantanamo were big fish.