4 ms·

Pre-crime is very much alive and kicking. For a publicly visible example, see the multitudinous "terror convictions" in the U.K. that have involved the arrest a

Pre-crime is very much alive and kicking. For a publicly visible example, see the multitudinous "terror convictions" in the U.K. that have involved the arrest and lengthy incarceration of people who have allegedly plotted, or have thought about beginning to plot, terrorist acts. Less publicly, there is a rather well hidden court circuit that has been about since 2008 which specialises in these cases, specifically the ones which can't be disclosed due to "national security". I know about this from a family friend who was a high flying barrister (QC) who was asked to preside. He refused. They destroyed him in the press ("paedophile sympathiser"), Cameron went on national TV to decry him, they suicided his wife. He is only just beginning to quietly practice law again. Every time I think I'm maybe paranoid I recall this episode, and know that the truth is likely even darker than I know. What a wonderful world we live in.

foldr 10y ago
>Cameron went on national TV to decry him, they suicided his wife. Sources for this? It seems unlikely that the Prime Minister would on TV to denounce a barrister for refusing a gig. They would just have got another barrister to do it.
- madaxe_again 10y ago
  I promise you he did - it wasn't to denounce him for refusing the gig, rather to denounce him as part of the retaliatory smear. Here's a pertinent link. If you read the court transcripts, none of the things ascribed to him were said by him - it was just another fairly average day in court. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386556/Lawyer-Robert-Colover-called-girl-13-predator-barred-sex-cases-condemned-Cameron.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386556/Lawyer-Rober... Here's an equanimous piece by a barrister befuddled by what happened to him, as the subtext is all sorts of secret. http://barristerblogger.com/2013/08/29/criticism-robert-colover-unfair/?fdx_switcher=true http://barristerblogger.com/2013/08/29/criticism-robert-colo...
  - foldr 10y ago
    The outrage had nothing to do with a refusal to preside over a secret hearing, as the links you provided show. Whether or not the Daily Mail article was fair is a separate issue. It may have misquoted him, but what he actually said was stil pretty bad. >Yes, your Honour. Very much so, and she is undoubtedly it is fair to say very experienced, and one hesitates to use the word, but it is a word that has been used in other cases, I think the officer would agree that she may well be what is described as predatory in respect of her activities. (Said of a 13 year old.)
    - icebraining 10y ago
      I think madaxe_again's argument is that similar things are said every day without a frenzy being raised, pointing to some other motivation behind it. That said, considering that he specifically chose that word, I agree that it's pretty bad, and find it hard to believe that it's a common occurrence for barristers to call 13-year-olds' actions "predatory".
      - madaxe_again 10y ago
        In mitigation such things are pretty normal - particularly coming from the prosecution under direct questioning, which this was. You don't mince words when asked for a direct opinion by a judge. Of course the press pieces don't address the context, as the context was and is a state secret. Bob is a Rabbi, a youth worker, a kite festival organiser, and a stand-up bloke and father of three very well adjusted adults I've known since I became a conscious entity.
        icebraining 10y ago
        Fair enough, but in any case, the argument wasn't on whether what he said was fair or correct, or whether the reaction was appropriate, but whether the (over)reaction was because of some unrelated case. I mean, it's not exactly uncommon for anything involving pedophilia, often even when there's no actual evidence of such, to explode in Think Of The Children hysteria, and a man in an official position calling a 13-year-old a "predator" sounds exactly the kind of thing that can trigger it. So the question is: are barristers often referring to 13-year-old as predators, and the media just specifically picked up on this case?

foldr 10y ago

>Cameron went on national TV to decry him, they suicided his wife. Sources for this? It seems unlikely that the Prime Minister would on TV to denounce a barrister for refusing a gig. They would just have got another barrister to do it.

madaxe_again 10y ago
I promise you he did - it wasn't to denounce him for refusing the gig, rather to denounce him as part of the retaliatory smear. Here's a pertinent link. If you read the court transcripts, none of the things ascribed to him were said by him - it was just another fairly average day in court. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386556/Lawyer-Robert-Colover-called-girl-13-predator-barred-sex-cases-condemned-Cameron.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386556/Lawyer-Rober... Here's an equanimous piece by a barrister befuddled by what happened to him, as the subtext is all sorts of secret. http://barristerblogger.com/2013/08/29/criticism-robert-colover-unfair/?fdx_switcher=true http://barristerblogger.com/2013/08/29/criticism-robert-colo...
- foldr 10y ago
  The outrage had nothing to do with a refusal to preside over a secret hearing, as the links you provided show. Whether or not the Daily Mail article was fair is a separate issue. It may have misquoted him, but what he actually said was stil pretty bad. >Yes, your Honour. Very much so, and she is undoubtedly it is fair to say very experienced, and one hesitates to use the word, but it is a word that has been used in other cases, I think the officer would agree that she may well be what is described as predatory in respect of her activities. (Said of a 13 year old.)
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I think madaxe_again's argument is that similar things are said every day without a frenzy being raised, pointing to some other motivation behind it. That said, considering that he specifically chose that word, I agree that it's pretty bad, and find it hard to believe that it's a common occurrence for barristers to call 13-year-olds' actions "predatory".
    - madaxe_again 10y ago
      In mitigation such things are pretty normal - particularly coming from the prosecution under direct questioning, which this was. You don't mince words when asked for a direct opinion by a judge. Of course the press pieces don't address the context, as the context was and is a state secret. Bob is a Rabbi, a youth worker, a kite festival organiser, and a stand-up bloke and father of three very well adjusted adults I've known since I became a conscious entity.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Fair enough, but in any case, the argument wasn't on whether what he said was fair or correct, or whether the reaction was appropriate, but whether the (over)reaction was because of some unrelated case. I mean, it's not exactly uncommon for anything involving pedophilia, often even when there's no actual evidence of such, to explode in Think Of The Children hysteria, and a man in an official position calling a 13-year-old a "predator" sounds exactly the kind of thing that can trigger it. So the question is: are barristers often referring to 13-year-old as predators, and the media just specifically picked up on this case?