Simon Asks about Intrusion Justification

[Ian G Batten]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Watkin Simon wrote:

> > > it's reasonable.  A fair cop.  Those suspected (and indeed 
> > guilty) of

> > 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?
> 
> No.  Not at all. In that phrase I was talking about that set of people who
> are guilty of committing crime, know they are guilty of committing and
> understand (or should understand) the consequences of that.  As I said
> "suspected AND INDEED guilty".

Idiomatically one would expect ``Those suspected (and indeed those
guilty)'', and I read your words as an elision of that.  That would
imply that you were writing of suspects, and explicity including those
who are both suspects and guilty, without excluding those who are
suspects but not guilty.

I accept that ``Those suspected (and indeed guilty)'' can be read to
mean only those who are both suspects and guilty, but I think you must
agree it's not exactly a clear construction.

> > There is a world of difference between being convicted of 
> > something and
> > merely being a suspect,
> 
> Agree.

Good.

> > no matter how much the Home Office 
> > would prefer
> > it to be otherwise.
> 
> Hmmm?

Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear, (c) Jack Straw, David
Blunkett et al.

ian