The Presumption of Innocence.

[derekpara]

I have an open mind on the question I am about to ask, and would plead for a reasoned debate.

In view of the threat to the people of this country from extremist terrorists, should those charged by the State have to prove their innocence rather than the other way around ?

Do drastic situations demand drastic measures like this ?

Sorry, two questions.

[Oneeyedvic]

As stated on the other post:

From the home office's own website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terroris m-and-the-law/terrorism-act/

895 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, 11 September 2001 until 30 September 2005.

Of these 895:

* 23 were convicted of offences under the Terrorism Act
* 138 charged under the Act, 62 of these were also charged with offences under other legislation
* 156 were charged under other legislation. This includes charges for terrorist offences that are already covered in general criminal law such as murder, grievous bodily harm and use firearms or explosives.
* 63 transferred to Immigration Authorities
* 20 on bail to return
* 11 cautioned
* 1 received a final warning for non-TACT offences
* 8 dealt with under mental health legislation
* 1 dealt with under extradition legislation
* 1 returned to Prison Service custody
* 1 transferred to PSNI custody
* 496 released without charge

Also worth looking at Brian Haws website :http://www.parliament-square.org.uk/

And even consider how Walter Wolfgang was arrested :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291388.stm

As the old saying goes: Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely!

[Ctrak]

No. The threat from terrorism since 9/11 has been vastly exaggerated to allow negative and increasingly authoritarian governance.

Now I've exposed this, I'd best be on the run. Right now, I'm at-

[Marvelman]

How did that lot get into this country in the first place, no wonder our prisons are full, send all the guilty ones back where they came from.

[stokeace]

whats wrong with you people who are you oneyedvic?some sort of lawyer for suspected islamic terrorists.get real will you?and what about you ctrac?have you been shipwrecked on a desert island since 9/11?if i were you id catch up on the news for the last 6 years or are you only 7?

[B00]

Can't help with the Q, infact I didn't even read it, but I saw who the question giver was and just wanted to say.....

Hello Derek, hope you had a good Christmas & New Year (where have you been?).

sorry, so sorry, will begger off again now- do carry on!

[Loosehead]

Are you really saying we should reverse polarity and have guilty until proven innocent? Come on think about it! do you really want to give the state and public that kind of power? No if we do this to ourselves the terrorists have won.

We are already having shampoo confiscated at airports not to mention anythin that could conceivably cut.

Don't you get it? The damage terrorists do is tiny compared to the damage we do too ourselves on the anvil of fear. Don't give the B4stards the satisfaction of knowing they have the power to make us make our own lives a misery.

[lector]

The State should have to continue to prove guilt, but the State needs to be allowed to use additional methods to do so ..... such as,

Greater surveillance
DNA database
Scrutiny of Financial transactions
etc

Times have changed - western democracy is under attack by a stealth opponent ....

Yes, libertarians won't like it .... but, was Kember right with his behaviour?

[kempie]

stokeace - it appears that you are the one who needs to catch up with the news of the past 6 years.

You still persist with your linking of Iraq to the attacks of September 11th - here - even though you were alerted to your gross factual error weeks earlier - here.

[Joe_the_Lion]

Hello derek (It is wardy here), the communists bannd me outright.

Q1) Absolutely. Take the recent news. How can a group of evil muslims (sorry do not know the collective term) justify buying kilos of amonium nitrate fertilizer when they lived in a council flat and hadn't even applied for an allotment?

Q2) Yes, if we do not act now we will be a Shariah run country in twenty years. Oxford and Cambridge Universities will be Terrorist Colleges, Westminster Abbey will be a mosque and the NIssan Bluebird will make a comeback.

Terrorism (as a soldier you must be aware), must never even have the chance to prosper. Not only do we need to nip it in the bud we need to nip it in the actual planting of the seed. The only way to do this is to outlaw world religions that predominantly preach hate to twenty something, foul mouthed immigrant scum.

[Ctrak]

stokeace- if I was 7, would I really use terms like "increasingly authoritarian governance"?

Erm, no. Clearly you swallow media hype wholesale- if the situation was as bad as the government would have you believe, though, London would strongly resemble Baghdad by now. As it is...one attack. One.

Oneeyedvic decides to back his view up with statistics. What the hell have you got? Intuition?

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince17.htm

I'm amazed that you can think that a government can have no hidden agenda behind what it does. If I were you, I'd stop analysing the world like you're 7.

[naomi24]

Ctrak, the familes of the people killed and those injured in the London bombings wouldn't say the threat of terrorism is vastly exaggerated.

And Loosehead, I don't mind my shampoo being confiscated at airports. You say don't give terrorists the satisfaction of knowing we're making our own lives a misery, and I can understand where you're coming from, but I think we have to realise that we're dealing with a totally different mind-set here - these terrorists aren't rational people - they're brainwashed fanatics.

So in answer to the question - yes I do think drastic situations call for drastic measures.

[sp1814]

nomi24

You write:

Ctrak, the familes of the people killed and those injured in the London bombings wouldn't say the threat of terrorism is vastly exaggerated.

Let me make an analogy - we frequently read in the news about paedophiles who murder children, right?

Well, say if we treated every man as a potential kiddy fiddler.

Every man would be treated as a suspect, randomly searched and treated with hostility.

Now, we know that's madness, don't we?

But you could post the same message saying:

Ctrak, the familes of the children killed by paedophiles wouldn't say the threat of paedophilia is vastly exaggerated.

I hope you see where I'm coming from...

[sp1814]

naomi24

My last comment looked like sarcasm - it wasn't meant to be, I didn't even consciously clock that I'd used the same phrasing as you.

[laurence2]

sp1814,

What are you going on about?

You seem to be very touchy on anyone commenting about muslims, Do you read things from all angles? i suspect not.

Naomi is correct in her posting of the london bombings, to i detect any symathy from you, i suspect not

[Pippa68]

Marvelman, how can we 'send them back where they came from' if they are British?

[Loosehead]

Lawrence, as someone I don't often agree with I'll leap to the defence of SP here. SP is using an analogy to demonstrate what a ludicrous state of affairs would arise of we did adopt the Guilty till proven innocent philosphy. The subject matter is related tio Islamic terrorism but in reality it can be applied to any area of potential crime. I did not detect any "touchynes".

And before you accuse us of being buddies do a quick search and you'll see there are very few thiings we agree on, this sort of thing is one of them though.

[jake-the-peg]

Have you ever seen or read "A man for all seasons?"


Thomas Moore: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

[Dolly1308]

As these people are home-grown terrorists (albeit muslims) they should be hung for terrorism against the State and its law-abiding citizens. In fact muslim or not anyone convicted of terrorism in this country should be hanged. No need to build more prisons ,terrorists CANNOT be rehabilitated,they have a certain mind-set and therefore of no use to man nor beast.
IMHO home-grown terrorism is akin to being a Traitor and we should all agree what should be done with Traitors .

[sp1814]

<picks himself up from floor>

laurence2

Loosehead is right. What I was trying, albeit, a little clumsily, to point out is that whole 'presumption of guilt' thing is a dangerous road to go down.

Furthermore, I've just re-read my posting twice, and I don't think I came across as touchy at all...just trying to present an alternative point of view.

I also think we should start using the phrase 'Muslim fanatics' or 'radicalised Muslims' or even better 'terrorists' so that we don't come across as pointing our fingers at all Muslims.