Friday, August 27, 2010

Ah, the Good Old days...

Anyone for a spot of purification?

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

A bit


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



Bridget said...

Hasina Patel is being incredibly brave in challenging the original decision by Jack Straw to refuse her and the family of Hasib Hussain legal aid. The last 5 years must have been hell for her, not only has her husband been utterly vilified, but she was also held in the appalling conditions of Paddington Green for a week, 18 months after the events of 7/7. As a mother, she also has the heavy burden of raising a child who will undoubtedly carry the 'sins of the father'.

Her courage is immense and she should be supported and applauded for challenging the system. If I had the dosh I'd pay for her legal team myself.

J7 wrote to Jack Straw after the initial decision to refuse legal aid and were told:

Legal aid for representation is not usually available for inquests because an inquest is a fact-finding process to determine who the deceased was and when, where and how he or she came by their death. However, under section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, funding may be provided for inquests, through an application for exceptional funding. The published exceptional funding criteria are that there is a significant wider public interest in funding the case, or that representation for the family of the deceased is necessary to enable the coroner to carry out an effective investigation into the death, as required by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Ministry of Justice received two applications from relatives of the “alleged perpetrators” of the 7th July bombings, for representation at the inquests into their deaths. Ministers refused these applications because they did not consider that the published exceptional funding criteria had been met.

What could be of greater public interest than knowing the truth of what actually happened on July 7th 2005?

If Hasina Patel happened to be rich enough to pay for her own legal representation would she be allowed to have legal representation to the Inquests?

Stef said...

Gyges' comments disappearing now...

gyges has left a new comment on your post "Ah, the Good Old days...":

There was a time when the apparent bombers were being described as, well, apparent bombers.

The transcripts are here.

However, Mr Adams (compare Dr Jim Swire) expressed disaproval.

"16 MR ADAMS: My name is Adams, my son, James, was killed at
17 Kings Cross tube.
18 For more than four and a half years, the whole world
19 has known that four sick and evil men killed 52 lovely,
20 innocent people, and yet now lawyers are talking and
21 writing about "apparent bombers". Your inquest is not
22 going to be about 52 "apparent" deaths. It's going to
23 be 52 real deaths caused by four real bombers.
24 I find it very upsetting and insulting and
25 unacceptable to use the word "apparent". If there's


1 some way round this, if you can use their surnames, but
2 not "apparent bombers", please.
3 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I understand, Mr Adams.
4 MR ADAMS: I further ask, has this change come about because
5 the legal representatives of the four bombers have
6 approached you and your staff concerning this?
7 LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: No, I have noted your concern and we
8 shall bear it very much in mind in future. Thank you."

Still crawling through the site but I haven't found Lady Justice Hallett's explanation for allowing the use of an inaccurate and prejudicial turn of phrase.

KingofWelshNoir said...

Totally agree. The residual taste left in my mouth by July 7 was that the so-called perps were patsies and thus the wives and spouses have been the victims of terrible cruelty.

Stef said...

even if you were to buy the Official Narrative these families will have been through, and will continue to go through, a tough time

Anonymous said...

This case goes to show the mess our legal system is in.

gratuitous one liner said...

The best system of Justice that money can buy

rob said...

you don´t expect the Establishment to investigate itself do you?

The Antagonist said...

"The best system of Justice that money can buy"

Probably now is a good time to remember that what is being dealt with is a system of 'law', not a system of 'justice'.

The notion of 'justice' is the almost transparent velvet glove that contains the iron fist of 'law' enforcement.

And we all know which relatively tiny groupuscules of people make the law, which groupings of people are charged with enforcing those laws, and how much control or influence the other 62 million of us have over either of those groups.

The Antagonist said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
stef said...


what do you mean by "almost as if"?


no, I don't

what does still surprises me is the overall passivity of the general population, its dumbed down sense of fatality and acceptance of a narrow range of discourse on what were once considered important issues

on the specific point of the treatment of Hasina Patel and the pre-judged 7/7 inquest, try having a look around even the most alternative alternative websites and blogs and see if you can find anyone swimming against the estasblishment flow on this one

I can't

The Antagonist said...

On first encountering the use of the term "apparent bombers", it seemed quite interesting, and perhaps even 'clever'.

The word "apparent" is deliberately ambiguous in a way that "alleged" isn't; the latter operating on the basis of the (once cherished) presumption of innocence, while the former allows for both innocence and guilt.

I suspect there would have been an even greater uproar if the term "alleged" had been used instead of "apparent".

An inquest is not meant to pre-judge outcomes, yet in this instance the inquest appears to be proceeding almost as if the guilt of the accused is a foregone conclusion.

The Antagonist said...

what do you mean by "almost as if"

Trying not to prejudge anything, and seeing the usage of the terminology "apparent bombers" from the outset, and some of Lady Justice Hallett's actions and comments, as potentially conducive to something vaguely useful occurring as part of the inquest process.

That's not to say anything useful will arise, just that there's a very small chance that it might.

gyges said...

From the Privisional Index of Factual Issues

(ie, issues to be determined),

"Forensic issues regarding the bombs and the bodies of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay

7. The likely components, manner of construction and mode of operation of the explosive devices.

8. The likely involvement of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay in the development and assembly of the explosive devices.

9. The presence at the scenes of MSK, Tanweer, Hussain and Lindsay, and their proximity to the explosions.

stef said...

it would be really nice if, just once, one of these inquiries addressed issues like that face-on, with no sins omission, sophistry or other tricks

just once

Anonymous said...

Very few things in this world are as they seem....

"In August 2007 the Firm published the results of a three year investigation which concluded that there is sufficient material evidence and testimony to indicate that the Boeing 747 which crashed on Lockerbie may have been the victim of a mid-air accident, caused by the unintended detonation of munitions components illegally carried on the plane."

"No public inquiry into the event has been convened, and no new criminal investigation has been initiated."....

"UN Observer to the Lockerbie Trial says ‘totalitarian’ appeal process bears the hallmarks of an “intelligence operation”

gyges said...

Decision has appeared on Bailii,

Patel, R (on the application of) v Lord Chancellor [2010] EWHC 2220.

Anonymous said...

Wait, legal aid still exists? No matter, those Bar association twunts were fat enough already...

Sinclair said...

I think that the identity of the alleged bombers should be investigated at the inquest.

A member of the public submitted a Freedom of Information request (ref FS50097905) to the Government Cabinet Office on July 18 2005. The FOI request was denied, with an eventual final response on 9 March 2009, with the answer that the information should not be disclosed.

The evidence upon which the identities of the alleged 7/7 bombers should surely be examined by the coroners inquest?