Indeed, a boring vegetable to put in a drink, but a firm little cucumber has uses beyond the kitchen… see ref 1
(1) “Coming of Age in the Suburbs”, Margaret Meed, Anthropology Classics Inc, Canberra DVD Stores, 1991.
(2) “Coming, ready or not!! Children and Their Merry Games in pre-1960’s Victoria”, Vanessa N’dressa PhD, Malvern Party Books, Malvern Adult Shoppe, 2003

Why not a “no presumption of guilt or innocence� as they do in French inquisitions.

Seems like the EU has scuppered that one Jack, unless you’re referring to some of Napoleon’s “inquisitions”. I guess from your position the EU has become too “liberal”–not enough of them dreaming the neo-con dream: “Wir haben Bin Laden, terroristisch, schweinehunde, untermenschen: Islam RAUS” etc etc

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says “Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty.” and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says “any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established”. The jurors’ oath reiterates this assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Why not a “no presumption of guilt or innocence� as they do in French inquisitions. That would seem to be less prejudicial.)

Jack, we parted company with the French well before Waterloo [the last time we Anglos had our way with them, more’s the pity :-)] . Less prejudicial indeed: to the prosecution. The presumption of innocence is 400 years of recognition that the overwhelming power of the state against an individual needs to be balanced.

Your assumption that terrorism is a figment of conservative imagination would not go down well with the survivors of Bali. This is one, amongst many, of the reasons that liberal lawyers are held in such low regard by common folk.

When it comes to a fair trial, habeas corpus, rules of evidence, presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the crown beyond reasonable doubt, you’ll find almost all lawyers are “liberal” Jack.

(”Common folk” BTW seem to hold us in such high regard when they are acquitted. Even when convicted, one I recall shook my hand on his way from the court dock to jail–I guess it was “low regard” he didn’t give me a hug or a sloppy kiss?)

As for “terrorists” and your strawman Bali argument, please do advance your reasons for implied neo-con Star Chambers law. (Apart from your nightmares.)

.. Glenmorangie experimenting with aging their 10 year olds in Port instead of Bourbon casks. The Quinta Ruban.

Mmmm many thanks for the heads-up Nabbers. I will alert the Geordie on his next trip to Dan Murphy’s :)

Well what I’m currently absorbing sorcie baby is Glenmorangie experimenting with aging their 10 year olds in Port instead of Bourbon casks. The Quinta Ruban. It’s a very smooth drop indeed but does lack a certain chewiness. So far. I’ll get to the bottom of it soon. And then eat the lead seal for roughage.

In this case various permutations of Pimms and lemonade…

Hell, even Jack Strocchi or John Greenfly has more charm and charisma than a cucumber.

Though one shudders to think what they’d do with said vegetable….

Now where is border protection when you really need it?

Cucumber, the world’s most boring vegetable - even leaves some certain blogosphere entities for dead if they’re pitched up against that dull watery tasteless slug.

Hell, even Jack Strocchi or John Greenfly has more charm and charisma than a cucumber.

Although quite not as much as steamed broccoli.

But his saga was no big deal one way or another

Can we then look forward to Jack Strocchi doing the Sydney Carton bit for some poor benighted terrorism laws victim?

Ahh, tequila! Or perhaps a Pimms No 1?

We pinko Marxist socialist revolutionaries accept nothing less than an aged single malt.

Ahh, tequila! Or perhaps a Pimms No 1?

Yep, Deuteronomy is still there.

And did Jack “Let’s hand over the keys to our forever year old legal system because the guy over there looks so mean I’ve just shat my pants” Strocchi appear in it?

(And one for the scholars out there? Does Deuteronomy still appear in modern editions of the Bible?)

presumed innocent

It was a good movie though. Greta Scacchi and Harrison Ford.

the “presumed innocent� crowd

Dang, the tourists win agin!

Hey this strawman thing is fun! No reason, all attitude. I can see now Jack why you spend all your time online doing the conga line with a scarecrow. If you don’t scare yourself to get the blood pumping, then who will?

Let’s talk about this more over a drink or two at BIO2008 in San Diego this June. You’ll be there won’t you?

Did you expect that just because some people in the land, seemingly including your good self, have recurrent nightmares (�dry� dreams one assumes) about existential threats, the legal profession would agree to a presumption of guilt?

To be honest, where terrorism is concerned, I can tolerate a few false positives. Less costly than false negatives so beloved by the “presumed innocent” crowd. (Why not a “no presumption of guilt or innocence” as they do in French inquisitions. That would seem to be less prejudicial.)

Your assumption that terrorism is a figment of conservative imagination would not go down well with the survivors of Bali. This is one, amongst many, of the reasons that liberal lawyers are held in such low regard by common folk.

Doubtless the Haneef case could have been handled better by the AFP. But his saga was no big deal one way or another. Its not as if Haneef spent ages languishing in the joint or was done over by the hard-men down at police HQ.

In any case Haneef gave good cause for the authorities to be concerned. He was acting suspiciously and consorting with some sus characters. He was in the middle of doing a runner when he was nabbed. He lied to his employers about his reason for taking leave. And he failed to properly disclose his connections with the bombers.

No doubt there was an innocent explanation for all this deception and prevarication. Its just that in the post-Tampa and post-Bali era I am in no mood to be charitable about such things. I am rather glad that plod is being bloody minded about such matters.

The minister has legal discretion to act the way he did, based on statute. If you dont like it, lobby to change the statute. Otherwise lawyers and their amen corner in the civil rights section should find something else to flap their jaws about.

Hicks is a terrorist…

Hicks signed a paper to that effect under conditions that were so corrupted that the US military prosecutor (the man who was trying to put Hicks into jail!) resigned in protest.

The only evidence we have of Hicks’ potential criminality was his decision as an Australian citizen to join the armed forces of another country, to wit, the armed forces of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan.

Hicks could have been in breach of CRIMES (FOREIGN INCURSIONS AND RECRUITMENT) ACT 1978 - SECT 7

http://tinyurl.com/3a4kpd

That does not make him a terrorist.

A job well done considering our borders are better protected and home land safer now than they were before his watch.

Safer Jack? Now that any two bit “terrorist” knows that the AFP has achieved accolades for its high level of incompetence?

He is obviously fed up with the fact that the media pack, bleeding hearts and the legal establishment constantly take the side of every suspect hauled before the courts.

Remember the “presumption of innocence” Jack? When self promoting pollies and police assume a right to smear, to give selective leaks in attempts to promote their political moral panics/only the AFP can save you lines, what do you expect the legal establishment to do? One barrister released a transcript of interview to expose the lies. (His Qld Bar Association essentially gave him a gold medal BTW for so doing.)

Otherwise, did you expect that the majority of the legal profession would roll over and applaud Andrews’ use of the Migration Act to subvert bail given to Haneef by a Qld court (”exceptional circumstances”), on what we now know (and knew then) were on utterly spurious grounds?

Did you expect that just because some people in the land, seemingly including your good self, have recurrent nightmares (”dry” dreams one assumes) about existential threats, the legal profession would agree to a presumption of guilt?

Thankfully, for once, the media DID print the transcripts, and DID provide means for transparency on this incompetent prosecution which had not a shred of hard evidence. Without which, Haneef would be waiting for years possibly to be acquitted.

So there is obviously no legal or penal point in prosecuting terrorists or even arresting suspiciously acting characters.

Agreed, unless the AFP can demonstrate a modicum of competence.

Hark, what is that scratching and scraping sound?

It’s the sound of the neo-cons buried alive Jack, scratching their way out, hopefully to emerge minus their ideas of existential threats from criminals.