there is "an urgent requirement" to understand the impact of the number of terrorist prisoners in high security prisons: "As it stands, there is no intervention available to us to counter terrorist behaviour or to counter the threat of radicalisation. The impact of terrorists on prison regimes in general can be particularly disruptive."
What if those ‘number of terrorist prisoners’ in UK jails were not real terrorists, but patsies banged up for 30+ years for (thought)crimes or for no crimes at all (perhaps being unfortunate enough to be ensnared by Mi5/Special Branch undercover agents – who acted as agent provocateurs).
Take the case of Eesa Dhiren Barot (the ‘terrorist’ who was given 9 passports by the Home Office)– even DAC Peter (Lunchpail) Clarke stated “there was not one shred of admissible evidence against Barot.”
Imagine if you were banged up but you were wholly innocent.
Wouldn’t you be frickin angry?
That is not the totality of what he stated is it. I don't know Barot. He pleaded guilty didn't he?
A 'written basis of plea', on behalf of Barot, was by signed by Mr Lawson [for the crown] and by Mr Macdonald QC, counsel for the appellant, but was not apparently signed by Barot.
Lawson for the crown has the unenviable record of:
- defending police officers against charges of corruption and of perverting the course of justice during the investigations into the 'Guildford Four' and 'Birmingham Six' bombings
- representing the Metropolitan Police at the inquest into the death of Princess Diana
- representing a number of British Army soldiers at the Saville Inquiry into the events of 'Bloody Sunday'
- advising the Metropolitan Police at the inquiry and subsequent Inquest into the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes
More info is here.
Post a Comment