Simon Asks about Intrusion Justification

[Ian G Batten]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:

> Why?  Because it is done reasonably.  When I get pulled over for speeding
> it's reasonable.  A fair cop.  Those suspected (and indeed guilty) of
> committing crime should be aware of the consequences - whether it's
> speeding, dealing in unfit meat or drug trafficking.  When I get pulled over

The full implications of this have only dawned on me.  Are you seriously
suggesting that if I am wrongfully suspected of a crime, the onus is on
me to be aware of the consequences of that suspicion and to accept them?

> and I haven't been speeding, or my house searched when I haven't been
> dealing in unfit meat or illicit drugs then I wouldn't feel so good about
> it.  The issue would be whether the invetigator was being reasonable or

So, Simon, is it the Home Office's contention that the set of people
``suspected'' of a crime and the set of people who ``haven't been
[carrying out crime]'' do not intersect?

You're right: being searched for crimes you didn't commit is bad.  Why
should the fact that you are a suspect make it any better?  You appear
to be expounding the oft-stated view of the Home Office, the Home
Secretary and the police that all suspects are guilty of something, as
otherwise they wouldn't be suspects.

There is a world of difference between being convicted of something and
merely being a suspect, no matter how much the Home Office would prefer
it to be otherwise.

ian