Hacker News Reader

Comment by tristanperry | Hacker News Reader

> It would have to be up to Group 4 to decide if this was possible.

> Yes, she really did say that. Group 4 would have to decide.

Presumably that refers to G4S (nee Group 4), the private security company that the UK Government are increasingly farming work out too?

i.e. the company who are embroiled in a series of scandals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_G4S

It is therefore quite concerning that a justice-based decision (a prisoner sitting by their lawyers and being able to speak to them as normal) is down to a for-profit private company.

I know that's just the tip of the iceberg, but still concerning to be reminded of it.

View on HN

To be honest, I think you've just exemplified a lot of what I think about this trial: people are reporting on what's happening, are outraged, but as far as I can tell, most of it is just par for the course for the British justice system.

Which isn't to say you shouldn't be outraged, but you should probably be outraged about a sixteen year old black kid being brought up for possession as well. He's not high profile enough to get a star lawyer determined to enumerate the problems with his treatment.

> but you should probably be outraged about ..

pointing out such inconsistency is an excellent way to dilute and dissolve outrage. Most people don't see such cases, they see this one because it's so high-profile/novel; If this is the breakthrough case that starts people talking it will benefit everyone.

That'd be great, but most of them seem to think the treatment is exceptional and targeted at Assange. If you pick the wrong target, all of your shots will miss.

(Equally, wait until you find out exactly how limited the grounds are to refuse an extradition to America. And the fact that America refuses to allow symmetric rules. And the fact that Britain went along with this...)

This is the bit that gets my blood boiling. The UK is extraditing a journalist to the US to keep Trump happy, while the US is refusing to extradite the wife of a civil servant after she killed someone.

That speech from "Love Actually" could be recycled usefully here.

Possession of what? AFAIK possession, and minor dealing, is pretty much tolerated by UK police. Underage ate probably cautioned, unless it's class A, or weapons .. and then I struggle to see why someone shouldn't be arrested/charged just because of their skin colour?

This is such a farce...

G4S provides the security for the court, so it's up to G4S to decide if it's appropriate and safe to waive the standard procedures for securing a potential dangerous criminal who is a flight risk. I don't know how you expect these things to be handled.

G4S, being a private company, only have incentive to increase profits, not do what would be the right thing. I would expect these things to be handled directly by an accountable person. Otherwise, before we know it, everyone is wheeled into court "Hannibal Lector"-like.

G4S being a private company working for government increase their profits by providing the services that the government are willing to pay them for. If they're not incentivized to do the right thing then that's down to the government asking for the wrong thing. In this case, they're incentivized to keep the public safe - which is what they are doing.

G4S, and other court staff, regularly misunderstand the rules. Every week there's a barrister or journalist complaining on twitter about the rules not being followed.

How would I expect this to be handled? I would expect the court to say what they want and for G4S (who serve the court) to accommodate that.

When you book a decorator, do you let them decide what needs decorating?

When you book a security firm, surely you give them details about what you want them to do. They may advise you, but you decide.

That's what we expect. And when it comes to court systems the appointed representative in positions of authority should decide what's required of hired help.

When I hire a decorator I ask them to paint a wall a specific colour, but I don't get to pick which paint brushes he uses. If you tell a security firm to keep them public safe, you let them make the judgement of what is safe.

G4S, though, has little incentive to address issues like audio quality in the glass box.

> potential dangerous

that is ridiculous. How is he dangerous?

He is dangerously well informed.

He has a history of releasing classified documents unredacted putting people's lives in danger. Do you think he'd be willing to do that again? I suspect so.

From inside the courtroom?

We're talking about whether he has to sit in a bulletproof box, or next to his lawyers like any other accused person. Your argument against this is that he's "dangerous" because he released unredacted documents (a disputed version of events, by the way). I don't follow the logic here, can you explain?

> releasing classified documents unredacted putting people's lives in danger

This claim has been refuted (by the US gov).

Do you think it's fair to let a private company decide these things?

It's the bailiffs decision not the guard dogs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com