Back in the golden days of no-nonsense justice, the process of identifying evil doers was sped up considerably by deciding that they were guilty before any inquiry actually began
The potentially tedious, long-winded and utterly pointless process of having to hear a case for the defence was often done away with thanks to the brilliant innovation of offering the pre-judged a less agonising form of execution if they confessed
Costs were kept to a minimum and impressively high conviction rates were achieved
Re-offending rates were low
Times moved on and things have changed
Those of us who are dissatisfied with and can point to gaps in the Official 7/7 Narrative, and who think that this is more important than the X-Factor or the new football season because of the societal changes that have been justfied by 7/7, should have raised an eyebrow at today's news that...
The first eyebrow raiser, though we arguably should be used to that by now, is this constant referral by the media to the alleged 7/7 bombers as being the 7/7 bombers
Says who exactly?
Ok, I know the police and government do but both institutions have been known to get things wrong in the past and, dare I say it, tell fibs occasionally.
That's why silly things like inquests and jury trials and the opportunity for representatives of the accused to present a defence came into fashion for a while
Anyone referring to the alleged 7/7 bombers as the 7/7 bombers, in the absence of a conviction by due process, is pissing all over the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty
That would be one of those sacred freedoms the terrorists are supposed to be trying to take away from us
That's another one off their todo list already then
Another reason to raise your eyebrows over the refusal to give legal aid to the widow of an alleged 7/7 bomber is the reason given for refusing the aid...
"Far from providing any information that might assist the wider public interest, she has flatly and unequivocally declined the opportunity to do so."
"Although requested by this court to show how she could help establish why her late husband and the others whom she knew acted to murder fellow citizens, she has provided not an iota of evidence to us which could show how she could bring a wider benefit, let alone a significant benefit, to the inquests or to the understanding of the victims of the bombing."
...which basically boils down to the High Court saying that this woman would be granted legal aid only if she is willing and able to confirm her husband's guilt
If she is unable to provide such evidence or, perish the thought, she's not 100% sure of her husband's guilt she can fuck right off
Back to the golden days of no-nonsense justice it is then
And I appreciate that I'm in the tiniest of minorities thinking like this but I guess that part of my brain which thinks that sticking to moral principles is really, really easy and involves no tough decisions must be damaged beyond repair