Enemies of Reason Poundshop potshots at the media moral maze.

"Astonishment" at jury doing duty and reaching complex verdict after weeks of evidence and days of deliberation

Juries sometimes do get it wrong - as fallible as legal professionals, they get it wrong about as often as police, law enforcement agencies and even Governments do. But juries are the best way we have of deciding criminal trials. Yes, sometimes there are miscarriages of justice where juries have been led up the garden path by expert witnesses or deceitful lawyers; but there are also many, many more occasions where juries have seen through the spin and the lies and decided a case on its merits, on the basis of evidence and not supposition.

Which is why it's particularly reprehensible that MI5 & friends should chuck their toys out of the pram when a jury decides it cannot reach a verdict on a certain case. It's part of a disturbing trend of these state-funded professionals, who are supposed to be at the very acme of their abilities, rolling around on the floor and bawling like babies when they can't get exactly what they want - just as the coppers snarled about the acquittal of Barry George. Well guess what? You aren't the centre of the universe. You are a fallible human being and your hunches and supposition need evidence to back them up. It's no use you saying that Mr X clearly meant to do Y because you said so, but 'because I said so' doesn't actually stack up in court as meaningful evidence. Evidence is evidence; supposition is supposition.

So they didn't do what they were supposed to do - well that's just tough on you, isn't it? Maybe if you had spent more time finding real evidence that conclusively proved your case, rather than getting friendly journalists on side to parrot everything you wanted them to say and fall in love with your concocted (but unproven) theories about what would have happened if A, B, C, D and E had all taken place, then maybe things might have turned out better for you.

Counter-terrorism officials are said to be "dismayed" by the outcome of a trial in which eight men were accused of a plot to blow up transatlantic planes.

Well that's hard cheese then, isn't it. Do you understand how the jury system works? Do you have a fucking clue? Or is there something else going on here? Is this a plan to put it in the public's mind that this verdict was ludicrous, just before launching into another enormous trial...?

The BBC's Frank Gardner said there had been "astonishment" in Whitehall as the evidence was considered to be strong.

Er, what? Can you run that past me again?

The BBC's Frank Gardner said there had been "astonishment" in Whitehall as the evidence was considered to be strong.

One more time, please.

The BBC's Frank Gardner said there had been "astonishment" in Whitehall as the evidence was considered to be strong.

No, I still don't believe it. But no, it's there. The evidence against these men was strong... as opposed to what? The usual rag-tag cotton reel-and-a-rubber-band evidence that gets cobbled together to justify hours and hours of surveillance of people who turn out to be little more than deluded fantasists? Yes, three of the men in this case planned to kill - and they will be sentenced accordingly, having been brought to justice - but the evidence was clearly not 'strong' enough for the jury. What was the evidence that these men planned to blow up planes rather than cause explosions in an airport? What evidence is there, apart from what the security services supposed at the time?

The court heard prosecutors allege that the eight men were planning to carry liquid explosives on to planes at Heathrow, knowing the devices would evade airport security checks.

Yes, but the proof for this was...? Was...? Was...? What was it?

Police said the plot had been inspired by al-Qaeda in Pakistan - and the August 2006 arrests caused chaos at airports throughout the country.

Oh, 'police said'. I see, we should really just convict everyone ever on the basis of 'police said', then, shouldn't we? Why bother with juries at all?

But in their defence, the seven men, who had recorded videos denouncing Western foreign policy, said they had only planned to cause a political spectacle and not to kill anyone.

That's nonsense, though, and the evidence against three was strong enough to prove that.

But the real reason why so many feathers have been spat out comes later on in the story...

The plot came to light after the largest ever surveillance operation involving officers from both MI5, the Metropolitan Police and other forces around the country.

And there's the thing. Biggest ever = must be successful. A partial success, based on a jury rightly doing their duty properly and considerately, is not a failure. It's a triumph for justice and a real victory against terrorism. Those who would kill and maim must be stopped - but there is nothing worth fighting for in any 'war against terror' if we aim to make our laws so draconian that simply supposition and the word of a policeman is enough to convict someone. If that ever happens then there is nothing left to fight for and we will live under terror forever.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

Related posts:

1. The jury smears continue
2. More evidence of the BBC’s liberal-left bias
3. Days off
4. 7 days without the Mail
5. 2 days left: Too subtle up till now