This really bothers me
Public
What does? Something from this BBC report about looters etc potentially being deprived of benefits. (They already are if jailed, incidentally.) That's a wider subject for another time, but what makes me uncomfortable right now is this:
On Friday, Wandsworth Council served a tenant with an eviction notice after that person's son appeared in court in connection with the Clapham Junction riot.
Cameron & co have, of course, been shooting their mouths off about this and how wonderful it is to see such action being taken. Now, I read a story about that in the (print) newspaper -- I think it was the Times, hence the lack of a link -- in which a council spokesperson said that, should the man be acquitted, they would halt eviction proceedings. Well, that's all right then, isn't it?
No, it's not.
Why? Because it's taking the line of "guilty unless proven innocent", which is wrong for any accused, no matter what their alleged crimes. If and when the guy is convicted, then action can be taken. But this just looks as though Wandsworth think the whole "due process" thing is a bit of a drag, and are irritated that such an old-fashioned idea should apply to their fine upstanding council.
I want criminals punished. I also want due process of law followed. These two things are not mutually exclusive: in fact they're absolutely dependent on one another.
What does? Something from this BBC report about looters etc potentially being deprived of benefits. (They already are if jailed, incidentally.) That's a wider subject for another time, but what makes me uncomfortable right now is this:
On Friday, Wandsworth Council served a tenant with an eviction notice after that person's son appeared in court in connection with the Clapham Junction riot.
Cameron & co have, of course, been shooting their mouths off about this and how wonderful it is to see such action being taken. Now, I read a story about that in the (print) newspaper -- I think it was the Times, hence the lack of a link -- in which a council spokesperson said that, should the man be acquitted, they would halt eviction proceedings. Well, that's all right then, isn't it?
No, it's not.
Why? Because it's taking the line of "guilty unless proven innocent", which is wrong for any accused, no matter what their alleged crimes. If and when the guy is convicted, then action can be taken. But this just looks as though Wandsworth think the whole "due process" thing is a bit of a drag, and are irritated that such an old-fashioned idea should apply to their fine upstanding council.
I want criminals punished. I also want due process of law followed. These two things are not mutually exclusive: in fact they're absolutely dependent on one another.