[Previous entry: "Book news"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Encounters"]

04/23/2006: "Why Blair must go, Part 47"

Eye-opening (or rather, worst-confirming) exchange between Blair & Henry Porter in today's Observer. A few statements in particular stand out. In relation to ASBOs, & the fact that they can be issued without recourse to a court:

'And yes, because often these thugs terrorise those who challenge them, we allow the police to give the evidence as hearsay. But the result is that where these powers are being used, the law-abiding no longer live in fear of the lawless. And yes, I would go further. I would widen the police powers to seize the cash of suspected drug dealers, the cars they drive round in, and require them to prove they came by them, lawfully. I would impose restrictions on those suspected of being involved in organised crime. In fact, I would generally harry, hassle and hound them until they give up or leave the country.'

'The question for me is: whose civil liberties? Of course the offender has rights; but so has the victim.'

And what of the accused, whose guilt or innocence has yet to be ascertained? Nowhere in Blair's exchange with Porter does he acknowledge the possibility that someone could be wrongly accused, or the victim of mistaken identity or malicious gossip. It is becoming increasingly hard to believe that this man is a qualified lawyer; certainly, his apparent inability to distinguish between alleged criminals and those proven to be criminals would not see him pass any class of mine.

Of course, this sort of rabble rousing is sure to play well with those who feel themselves in little danger of being accused of anything, i.e. middle aged white people in 'respectable' jobs.

Replies: 1 Comment

>>It is becoming increasingly hard to believe that this man [Blair] is a qualified lawyer;

Or, indeed, qualified at anything else. Nevertheless, he is a lawyer, though I doubt that a great career at the bar awaits him when he finally leaves no. 10.

The ASBO is essentially a device used when an ordinary prosecution holds little prospect of success, and therefore, I would suggest, is actually more likely than not to be based on shaky evidence and questionable assumptions. Some of them have been frankly ludicrous and an abuse even given the wide terms in which ASBOs can be couched. Do you remember that sketch from "Not the Nine O'clock News" in which Griff Rhys Jones plays a young policeman hauled before Rowan Atkinson to explain the charges he repeatedly brings against the same man, including "Wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area" and "Breaking and entering a soft-boiled egg"? There are ASBOs with not much more logic or coherence.

As for lawyers having a respect for the law, you will excuse mirthless laughter. While some undoubtedly do, including your good self, there are others who know the law only so that they can find the loopholes. Asking some lawyers to speak about respect for due legal progress is rather like asking Josef Mengele to lecture on medical ethics just because he was a doctor. Unfortunately, too many such lawyers are on the government front bench.

Graham Brack said @ 05/03/2006 07:49 PM GMT