Sunday, 15 March 2009

Jack Straw and Bridget Prentice defend death cover-ups

If you meet your death at the hands of the State, whether shot by our paramilitary police, drowning in your own vomit in a police cell, butchered by an incompetent hospital doctor or blasted to pieces by our American allies whilst serving with the army, the law requires that a Coroner with a Jury hears evidence of your death and adjudges culpability. It is our ultimate safeguard against the capriciousness of the State. And it's one that Straw and Prentice want to abolish. They favour secret inquests that would allow police assassinations to be swept under the carpet, with press and public kept in the dark.

I'm not convinced that the story in this morning's Telegraph is correct - that this is all being done at the behest of the US. We're now all aware of the lies that the Foreign Secretary told our courts about the US being responsible for the government not presenting torture evidence, so could they not be lying now about this? Following McFool's frequent blaming of the US for his own financial incompetence, it seems the government are making our Cousins the whipping-boy for every failure, cover-up and malfeasance of their own.

This is far more likely to have been cooked-up by a poisonous cabal of ministers and civil servants for whom not embarrassing the State is genuinely more important than accounting for the lives of our fellow citizens.

3 comments:

TheFatBigot said...

I would normally be inclined to put this sort of proposal down to a lapse of judgment. Every government suggests silly things from time to time and talks itself into believing they are balanced and workable.

We have now reached the stage where every new proposal coming from the current shower has panic and paranoia written all over it.

They seem to be descending ever further into the bunker, seeking to isolate themselves from any semblance of accountability either to Parliament or the wider public.

And still a year or more to go.

Sabretache said...

I'm sure you didn't intend it but the impression left is that the proposals would be more palatable if the Telegraph story were indeed true.

Personally, I gave it serious credence, if only because slip-streaming the US on all matters remotely connected with 'National Security' has become re-rigeur since the inception of the phony 'War on Terror' - and it had me spitting feathers. The proposal itself is bad enough (although 'bad' is an understatement), but to have yet another piece of 'Security-State' type legislation foisted upon us at the behest of our masters in Washington goes beyond the pale.

it's either banned or compulsory said...

The Americans can and do refuse to give evidence to our coroners courts in friendly fire inquests whereas most of the cases our Government would wish to cover up ( David Kelly, Jean Charles de Menezes, Michael Todd, Police in hot-pursuit etc. ) are entirely domestic.