Minister promises that Part III is coming

[Caspar Bowden]

>admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Morrison

>> >I'll grant it may have a bearing in the case of habitual criminals,
>> >including paedophile and KP crimes, but it is not the be all and end
>> all.
>>=20
>> What does that mean?

>That you can't decide on their guilt by making that decision on
>the basis of equivocal evidence.

And where did you get the idea I had proposed that?

>Those measures are part of a sentence, often in place of half of the
>prison sentence. Outside of such restrictions, where is the authority
>to hold the convicted to higher levels of probity than others?=20

>From the putative new law that is the subject of this discussion

>Even if,
>in the case of KP convictions, an entry is made in the sex offenders'
>register that in itself is nothing more than a flag to be used in
>specific circumstances (jobs in sensitive places, such as schools).

(2nd reminder I'm not talking about KP convictions for reasons
previously discussed)

So you don't think it would be a reasonable parole condition for
convicted child molesters to make arrangements to ensure they are able
to decrypt data in their control if legally required?

>It isn't the equivalent of the star of David sewn on a lapel.

That's a really tasteless and irrational comparison which I won't touch
with a bargepole, but which I don't suppose you would want to maintain
with a little more reflection.

What are you saying..."First they came for the convicted child molesters
(reversing the burden of proof on key possession), and I did not speak
out..."?!

--
Caspar Bowden