No, fuck right off

Under the government\’s plans, all \”sensitive\” information held by MI5 and MI6 would be discussed in secret court hearings. \”Special advocates\”, security vetted and approved by the government, would see the information on behalf of individual defendants or claimants but not would not be able to reveal it to them.

Such procedures, or alternatively vetted jurors, could also be used in coroners\’ inquests, the government has said.


You want to try and convict me, jail me, you have to do it with information legally collected and do so in public. And I get to use the lawyer of my choice, I even get to be my own lawyer if that\’s what I wish to do.

Any other suggestions, ideas, possibilities, no, you get to fuck right off back into that oppressive hell these suggestions come from.

Go back and read a little bit about Soviet \”jurisprudence\” why don\’t you? Poor sorry wretch protesting his innocence and his lawyer stands up and says \”well, clearly he\’s guilty, I\’ve seen the evidence. Best you can do is shoot him quickly to reduce the agony.\”

Remember people, all these laws about evidence, about procedure, representation, juries, lawyers, presumption of innocence and all. They\’re not to protect criminals from righteous justice. They\’re to protect us, the citizenry, from the politicians and their secret police. Yes, that really does mean MI5 and MI6, we do need to be protected from them just as we need them to protect us also.

Complete cuntybollocks of an idea being floated here.

12 thoughts on “No, fuck right off”

  1. Could they be aiming far higher than they actually want so that what they want looks reasonable by comparison?


    Put it on the telly and the public will vote in their droves. Running Man could be a revenue raiser.

  2. Could they be aiming far higher than they actually want so that what they want looks reasonable by comparison?

    It’s possible this is a ‘red rag and smuggle’, yes.

    But this could also be part of the wedge, the thin end of it being the similar things already done in SIAC and control order hearings.

  3. I have to say that the security services, by and large, didn’t want intelligence information introduced in to court – the phrase “source sensitive” is the mantra – but it has been dragged in by the defence.

  4. Intelligence agencies have always been very leery about passing all bar the most general information in to the criminal justice system – because it reveals intelligence techniques and capabilities.

    Which meant that, in a lot of cases, people were png’d, deported or sacked rather than the evidence against them being put in front of an open tribunal.

  5. In some of these cases the “defence” is the government / security services… the claimants are people who claim they were kidnapped renditioned, unlawfully detained and tortured, and the UK authorities were complicit in this.

    I am not saying their claim is true – I have no idea, because the authorities don’t want to disclose the evidence.

  6. Didn’t the last lot try this one on before, specifically the bit about inquests?

    Presumably they wanted to avoid any, ahem, unpleasantness from future David Kelly-type incidents, by dealing with them quietly and cleanly out of the public eye. Stalin would have been proud of them.

    Fuck right off seems about the right response.

    But remember, if it gets shot down this time, they’ll be back. They’re always back. Eternal vigilance and all that.

  7. If they refuse to give out this info publically then they cannot prosecute. It must be in public so jutice can be seen to be done. It really MUST be that simple!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *