The Birmingham Three

[Audley Strange]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21534048

Far be it for me to suggest without actually being able to look at the evidence to decide the guilt of these convicted traitors but does anyone else think perhaps the Police and intelligence service might be, as they were in the 70's and 80's a bit too enthusiastic in identifying and convicting supposed terrorists?

I'm not saying these men are innocent, but let's face it it would not be the first time they've banged up people for terrorism on trumped up charges. Do we think the police infallible in the immediate term? Is it only ever in the past that they are corrupt and make mistakes?

How long before they do convict and send to prison some innocent citizens for terrorism, if indeed they have not already.

[Rum]

What's your point? These guys were apparently planning something bigger than 7/7. Leave them alone to get on with it??

[Audley Strange]

Yeah, apparently Rum. Apparently the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four "actually" blew up some pubs. Apparently Jean Charles de Menezes was going to blow up the underground. Yet it seems this was not the case, doesn't it?

My point, which I thought was clearly stated, especially in the last sentence has obviously went by you. I'll restate it.


Does anyone else think perhaps the Police and intelligence service might be, as they were in the 70's and 80's a bit too enthusiastic in identifying and convicting supposed terrorists?
If so, how long before they do convict and send to prison some innocent citizens for terrorism, if indeed they have not already?

Are we at the stage yet that it better a innocent man go to jail (or be shot in the head what 6 times?) than a potential criminal commit a crime?

[laklak]

The State does not make errors, Citizen.

[Rum]

Yeah, apparently Rum. Apparently the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four "actually" blew up some pubs. Apparently Jean Charles de Menezes was going to blow up the underground. Yet it seems this was not the case, doesn't it?

My point, which I thought was clearly stated, especially in the last sentence has obviously went by you. I'll restate it.


Does anyone else think perhaps the Police and intelligence service might be, as they were in the 70's and 80's a bit too enthusiastic in identifying and convicting supposed terrorists?
If so, how long before they do convict and send to prison some innocent citizens for terrorism, if indeed they have not already?

Are we at the stage yet that it better a innocent man go to jail (or be shot in the head what 6 times?) than a potential criminal commit a crime?

Errors happen. Nothing is perfect. Looks like these guys were guilty as fuck though.

[mistermack]

Are we at the stage yet that it better a innocent man go to jail (or be shot in the head what 6 times?) than a potential criminal commit a crime?

Errors happen. Nothing is perfect. Looks like these guys were guilty as fuck though.

Yeh, I'm not sure what the point is.
Do you stop ignoring terrorists, because someone got fitted up? No, you put the pressure on the police and prosecutors not to go with shakey cases.
But the Birimingham Three case was a lot different. There had been an atrocity, the pub bombing, and the police were under pressure to make an arrest, and get a conviction, to "avenge" the pub bombing.

These guys weren't arrested after any successful crime, there was no pressure to get a scapegoat.
It's after some atrocity that most false convictions happen. Pressure from above.

That's what needs looking at. People have to realise that after an atrocity, if you can't catch those responsible, you can't catch them. No matter what pressure you put on the police, if the clues aren't there, they can't catch them.
It's people at the top, putting on pressure for an arrest, who should get sacked for false arrests.

[Clinton Huxley]

Got them bang to rights, far as I can see. As terrorists go though, well, if Viz had a cartoon called Crap Terrorists.....

[John_fi_Skye]

We delegate to our judiciary the responsibility for ensuring the legal system works fairly. Our elected representatives oversee that system. Given the way the world is, and given that people are fallible and flawed, I don't think the set-up is too bad.

I don't think there's much to be gained from trying to micro-manage or micro-analyse court cases. When you delegate a job, you keep out of it. You assume the person to whom it's delegated will be up to it. You keep an eye on the outcomes, but you leave them to it.

[Clinton Huxley]

I had to laugh listening to the news. These jokers collected money for jihad, then lost £9k of it doing online share-dealing. One of them was partially-sighted. Chris Morris was right. Terrorism is often about berks.

[mistermack]

What the police did is actually a very good thing. Rather than wait for them to go nearly all the way, they just collected enough evidence of conspiracy, and then knocked their doors.

That will make people think twice about going along with a conspiracy, thinking they can just make excuses and pull out at the last minute. A lot of these asians will bullshit, and then be dragged into a conspiracy, rather than lose face. Now they know that just that is enough to put them away with a life sentence. Win win.