Much is made of the UK's "innocent until proven guilty" tradition, which should be the cornerstone of a criminal justice system firmly rooted in Magna Carta . But just how does that presumption stand up to scrutiny? There may be a titular presumption in the courtroom, but when the noble traditions which really ought to underpin the whole process from investigation through charge to court are essentially hamstrung by a police force which clearly doesn't operate under the same code the result is, sometimes tragically {as in the case of Operation Ore}, that the entire system is undermined wholesale. Until British police forces presume at least something like innocence in the abscense of contrary evidence we will continue to see the blameless suffer along with the guitly. That police forces routinely assume guilt is surely beyond question. My own case was open and shut, my guilt admitted freely. But I have to wonder whether the results would have been any different had I actually been innocent. Until the police presume the same innocence as the courts, the whole process of legal proceedings in this country will continue to see the punishment of those too weak to avoid a "confession" made under coercion or "evidence" assembled to suit the view of the prosecuting officer who, it seems, faces no sanction for blatantly false imprisonment. There is no presumption of innocence. How can there be when it's deliberately made to fall at the first post? So I have to ask: Why continue with this charade?

I agree.

You mentioned Operation Ore: I see sadly the great investiagtive journalist who uncovered much of the authorities shenanigans in this case, Duncan Campbell is retiring but very alarmingly, the forensics expert Jim Bates (www.inquisition21.com/)also been charged !

Bates doesn't sound overly concerned with the charges but it signals acts of pure evil and vindictiveness on the part of the police and authorities.

However I believe with time there is going to be a backlash against all the injustice being waged by authorities.

Oddly-all this is happening under Nu Labour !. That rumbling sound you hear is my terrifyng Scottish Socialist grandfather rising from his grave to throttle traitors-from his own party.

We only have to look at the large number of cases brought to court where the prosecution offer zero evidence. In these cases the burden of proof is squarely on the defence. There is no escaping that fact. How can the burden of proof be on the prosecution if they are offering no proof. By bringing the case to court they are saying the defence must prove innocence.

Such cases should never reach court. That they do clearly shows that the system has failed. The law does not mean what it says.

Totally agree.
Even when faced with historical allegations,and no proof other than the word of a girl,with convictions for ABH & burglary,I was still handcuffed when taken to hospital,and kept in solitary confinement for 2 days.

Ah Innicent Accused - so you are a VICTIM of the criminal allegations scheme. This is where hard core criminals make allegations in order to give themselves " reasons" for their criminal behaviour which they can use to avoid sentences and harsh punishments IF they get caught.

It is a classic case of CRIMINAL PREPARATION for crime to look for "ways out" of being harshly treated in court.

Nearly every criminal has a litany of excuses about why they have committed a criminal act. To blame an innocent person seems to get KUDOS within the criminal fraternity.

I have locked into battle with the criminal fraternity over the last 10 years and found that the justice system runs for THEIR benefit - and they can do what they want without censure. Whereas ordinary people find that they are threatened at all times with being charged for just doing things like talking to people.

The system stinks under New Labour.