Following a recent vote in the House of Commons, Britain is now, by some measures, a Police State. Readers: are you enjoying it so far?
More to follow on the Great Writ.
P.S. You may be interested to know that the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that inmates detained at Guantanamo Bay now have the right to pursue a habeus corpus challenge of their detention? So in certain fundamental ways, they have more rights than British citizens. But at least we don't have to wear orange jumpsuits.
19 June, 2008 - 15:31
Yet.
19 June, 2008 - 17:15
James
Perhaps you would be better placed discussing civil liberies with your colleague Charlotte Leslie who, on her blog, refers to unconvicted, awaiting trial, Andrew Ibrahim as 'the Bristol Bomber.' Thoughts?
19 June, 2008 - 19:49
I can't find anywhere on Charlotte's Blog where she talks about the "Bristol Bomber". I suggest you go and leave a comment there if you can find it.
I said at the time of Andrew Ibrahim's arrest that the presumption of innocence does not imply the suspension of disbelief. Were I to be selected for jury duty in this case, I would not hesitate to set aside all preconceived notions and do my duty as a British juror: to presume the defendant innocent unless proven guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
However, as a bystander with no direct interest in the case, I'm perfectly happy to draw reasonable conclusions from the fact that the bomb squad turned up at Andrew's house to carry out a number of controlled explosions, namely that he was probably preparing for a spot of Jihad.
So, you're right: people shouldn't call him the "The Bristol Bomber"; the correct local terminology is "The Techno Terrorist".
JMB
19 June, 2008 - 23:04
"I can't find anywhere on Charlotte's Blog where she talks about the "Bristol Bomber"
No, you won't either, she's removed it.
"I suggest you go and leave a comment there if you can find it." I did - it wasn't published, but it was why she changed it.
"So, you're right: people shouldn't call him the "The Bristol Bomber"; the correct local terminology is "The Techno Terrorist".
Astonishing. Perhaps another local Tory would like to find him guilty. As I type, I'm listening to David Davis banging on on Question Time - talking about the threat to civil liberties by CCTV cameras and a DNA database. Yet you and a senior local Tory are quite happy to glibly pronounce a man guilty of astonishingly serious offences. If you were newspapers, you'd be sued, and you would probably be held in contempt of court. Indeed, had you been a newspaper, you might even prejudice the trial. It's utterly outrageous.
20 June, 2008 - 18:10
Last I checked I'm not entitled to sit on the bench, so I'm not in a position to pronounce anyone guilty. If it makes you feel better, I'll write "alleged Techno Terrorist", but given that I'm neither a member of the press nor involved in the case in any way it seems somewhat superfluous, particular with the underlying satirical tone.
This is an interesting area for discussion, though - is liberty better served by limiting what the press can say (UK model), or allowing free commentary (US model)?
JMB