Blair's Burden!
Ok, so you think I’ve too much time on my hands. But this really gets me going. We have a Prime Minister, a lawyer, who according to Hansard has no idea what is meant by the “burden of proof”.
In response to Michael Howard’s question at PMQ’s this week, Tony Blair said this.
"First, let me correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. I thought that I had said the opposite—that the judicial scrutiny issue was not the point of principle. The point of principle is on the control orders and the burden of proof........ In particular, we cannot accept the burden of proof being different from that of reasonable suspicion. In the House of Lords yesterday, the Conservative Front Bench voted for a change to that burden of proof provision, too. For those reasons, we cannot accept his amendments. He will have to come to a decision, and so will the Conservative party, as to whether to accept the legislation. We have made concessions that we think are reasonable; we will not make those that are against the direct advice that we are receiving."
The Hansard original can be seen at:
Now I suspect most first year law students would be shouting out at this stage.
“ Hey, Tony, you’re talking about the “standard of proof”. And indeed he was. Can I suggest Blair visits http://tinyurl.com/6tcee?
Now that’s off my chest!
Cheers
t
posted by Tony @ Friday, March 11, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home