Few stories in this column over the years have been more shocking than that which I reported in April 2005 about Ian Thornhill, a former senior policeman who ran an import-export business in South Wales. In 2003 Mr Thornhill became the victim of an astonishing series of blunders by HM Customs and Excise, when they were tipped off that a container-load of assorted goods being imported into Southampton included a large quantity of cocaine. Also in the container was a consignment of nuts being imported by Mr Thornhill, whose brother Stuart had been acting quite independently as a forwarding agent for the container.
When Customs officials arrested a lorry driver who had been sent to pick up the cocaine, worth £60 million, their largest-ever haul, they also arrested the two brothers, although there was no shred of evidence to indicate that they had been involved. (The cocaine had been smuggled into the container en route.)
This led to a scarcely believable nightmare for the two men which was to last for nearly two years. They were held as Class A prisoners in a succession of top-security prisons, next to mass-murderers and terrorists. Stuart's health collapsed. Three times they were put on trial, in different cities, at one point being driven 100 miles a day to the court and back for several weeks, strapped down and deprived of food in freezing prison vans.
Link to Print version
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/15/nbook115.xml
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on July 16, 2007]
Note: http://www.telegraph.co...
Judges Rule Out Recompense For The Innocent
Posted on Monday, July 16 at 09:55 by DiogenesContributed By
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
<br />
Part 1 - <a href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki.htm">http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki.htm</a><br />
<br />
Part 2 - <a href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki1.htm">http://www.newswithviews.com/Raapana/niki1.htm</a>
Your entry here exceeds my expectation for feedback
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
Communitarianism is a rather brilliant strategy for getting 'voluntary compliance' out of the common people, since with only a poor understanding of what is going on, many people will agree with the 'goodness' of the concept. Only when you dig deeper and have a firm understanding of what happens when certain key individual rights are surrendered, can one understand what is wrong with the concept of surrendering all individual rights for the 'greater good' as is whimsically defined by a court system that is operated by a few unelected ruling elites.
Canada's so-called 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' is a good example of a communitarian law in that it craftily defines a process for doing the opposite of what it appears on the surface to promise; it in fact erases *all* individual rights and freedoms in one fell swoop by allowing the courts to decide on a whim which right and which freedom may be erased for the 'greater good'. The 'greater good' of course is something only a few appointed judges are allowed to define as dictated by their pay masters, and it should be clear that they will generally always rule in favor not of the commons, but in favor of the hands that directly feed them.
A case example are the recent imprisonments of two elderly BC woman (one of which prematurely died as a result of the incarceration) for protesting the destruction of our environment. In this case, the BC provincial court whimsically decreed that the two women were getting in the way of corporate profits, which in their estimation was of course in the way of the 'greater good', thus justifying erasure of the right to protest, and justifying the harsh penalty of imprisonment for protesting peacefully and trying to protect our environment for what these two women considered to be for the 'greater good' of the commons.
I'm in no way a libertarian extremist, and I think that individual rights should not be absolute, in that when one right violates another, there should be some judgment that makes for a healthy compromise. For example, people ought to have the individual right to smoke, but when that right violate the individuals right to breath fresh air, well a judgment has to be handed down restricting one right so that it does not impose too much on another. I could not care less if someone wants to puff away and kill themselves in the process, but I'll defend my right to breath air in its natural state. In my judgment, the natural state of affairs should always take precedence over those that are artificially and needlessly altered.
There's a fine line between dealing with balancing the rights of one individual over the rights of other individuals vs balancing the rights of all individuals for the sake of the 'greater good'. I've found that many people fail to distinguish good laws from bad ones when they restrict or take away individual rights under the banner of the 'greater good'.
For example, seat belt laws appear to be beneficial to many people, but are actually bad communitarian laws. Many people will argue that these laws are for the greater good because we have a universal medical system and when people get hurt for foolishly not wearing seat belts then we all have to pay for it (also the protection of children who cannot decide what's good for themselves do factor in, but that's another debate). The key point that's missed, is that the government controlled medical system is monopolized by decree through communitarian law, which violates the individual's freedom to opt out of the system. Since no one is allowed to opt out of the system, we are all forced to pay for a medical system that in practice we are all forced to use, and this means that no one has the right to take risks that put ones self in harms way. The hypocrisy in it all, is that what you'll see, are laws that generally allow for only risky behaviours that are profitable for the mega corporations (eg various types of sporting activities, drinking, and so on), while almost everything else that's decreed as being too risky will be banned.
Where will it end? Government controlled surveillance cameras have been appearing all over the place (do you see those things popping up at every street intersection?), we'll eventually be forced to show a national ID card for every conceivable transaction we make else it will be considered illegal, our children will eventually be forced to attend state run schools because home schooling will be decreed as illegal or severely restricted, we won't actually own anything which is pretty much how it already is, and even our own children will be wards of the state directly from birth.
The reality of communitarianism is that it is already well entrenched in our current society, and many people are cluelessly going along with the program and are merrily helping to make it ever more imposing.
It is… Or rather appears to be, should one be remembering my “isness” rant
OK fresh start, it is that those of us who who think along the line we do can build on one another’s presentations here on Vive and it is with that in mind I attempt to tone down the way I present my self
Damned good contribution rg Thank you for it
Dio
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
<br />
<a href="http://www.pivotlegal.org/Publications/rightscards.htm">http://www.pivotlegal.org/Publications/rightscards.htm</a> <br />
<br />
Here are the American and Canadian versions, althought the point may be moot the way judges are making law from the bench<br />
<br />
I wish to invoke my Miranda Rights to remain silent under the statutes and constitution of the United States of America. I do not want to talk or answer any questions to law enforcement. I do not want to participate in any lineup or show-up until I consult with an attorney and he is present. I do not consent to any search of my person, property or possession under my control or which I have an interest. I declare that I do not waive my legal rights and I insist on having my lawyer present.<br />
Mr. Police Officer: Under the recommendation of legal advice I have nothing further to say at this time. If I am not free to go, I wish to know what I am being charged with and I wish to speak to my lawyer now.<br />
<br />
The Statement For Police half of the card can be given to the police officer after being read out. It reads: <br />
"Officer, if I am under arrest or being detained, please tell me so. <br />
If I am free to go, please tell me so. If I am not free to go, please tell me why. <br />
I wish to exercise all my legal rights including my right to silence and my right to speak to a lawyer before I say anything to you. <br />
I do not consent to be searched. I wish to be released without delay. <br />
Please do not ask me questions, because I will not willingly talk to you until I speak to a lawyer. <br />
Thank you for respecting my rights."<br />
Officer, if I am under arrest or being<br />
detained, please tell me so. If I am free to go,<br />
please tell me so. If I am not free to go, please tell<br />
me why. I wish to exercise all my legal rights including<br />
my right to silence and my right to speak to a<br />
lawyer before I say anything to you. I do not consent<br />
to be searched. I wish to be released without delay.<br />
Please do not ask me questions, because I will not<br />
willingly talk to you until I speak to a lawyer.<br />
Thank you for respecting my rights<br />
<br />
Each situation is different and you must use your common sense. Stay<br />
calm and remember everything that happens. Remember your rights!<br />
(1) Silence: I can refuse to talk to police or answer their questions,<br />
unless I am in a bar or a cinema, driving a car, or they say I<br />
broke the law. In those cases, I must give my name, birthdate<br />
and address, or show my ID, but I do not have to say any more.<br />
If you are stopped by police against your will, give them the top part of<br />
this card or read it out. Then, do not say anything until you talk to a lawyer.<br />
<br />
Officer, if I am under arrest or being<br />
detained, please tell me so. If I am free to go,<br />
please tell me so. If I am not free to go, please tell<br />
me why. I wish to exercise all my legal rights including<br />
my right to silence and my right to speak to a<br />
lawyer before I say anything to you. I do not consent<br />
to be searched. I wish to be released without delay.<br />
Please do not ask me questions, because I will not<br />
willingly talk to you until I speak to a lawyer.<br />
Thank you for respecting my rights.<br />
<br />
Dio<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />