Slashdot Log In
UK Can Now Hold People Without Charge For 42 Days
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Jun 12, 2008 01:37 AM
from the the-terrorists-have-won dept.
from the the-terrorists-have-won dept.
the_leander writes "Prime Minister Gordon Brown has narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days. There is talk of compensation packages available for the falsely accused. The chances of you getting that money however are slim to none, lets not forget, this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
The Question (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Question (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The Question (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The Question (Score:5, Informative)
In Soviet Russia, base 13 encrypts jokes.
Oh wait...am I now in violation with the DMCA?
Parent
Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
However there are still 315 people who really should be held for 28 days without charge. Are there enough truely patriotic police to do this though.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You or I get held for 28 days - potentially without communication with the outside world, let's not forget that - and when you get out your employer will have given up on you and sought a replacement. Your personnel record will say "Disappeared off the face of the earth one day" - which I'm sure would look just great if an alternate employer contacted them for a reference.
And if you're asked why you left your job - well, I'd love to see the look on the interviewer's face when you say "I was detained under the Terrorism Act and not allowed to contact anyone, so my employer had to find someone else to do the job" but I don't think it's an answer that would do you any favours.
Compensation? What compensation? They'll base compensation on the 28 (or 42) days you were detained, not the repercussions. If the repercussions include "having to sell the house because you can no longer afford it because you lost a £40,000 per year job and had to take a £25,000 per year job", that's your problem.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those two things will take you about 20 minutes, and when you've done em you can come back here and rant along with me, with a new-found sense of entitlement and smug self-satisfaction at your personal involvement in the issue. Hey it works for me.
So, yeah, Labour MPs who voted for this disgraceful attack on fundamental rights we've had since Runnymede ought to be utterly ashamed of themselves; they've revealed that they are unprincipled bunch of spineless tossers, and I think there's a line about weasel's and god's clean air from Blackadder that springs to mind, too. Fuck Brown, and fuck this government, too. I've even crossed a personal rubicon whereby I now think a Tory govt would be preferable, something I never thought I'd say.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, our fine tradition of having decisions by the people we elect overturned by a bunch of unelected lords.
Nope, nothing wrong with our system at all.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not to disagree with you, just wanted to point out that this law is not popular [bbc.co.uk] in Britain.
IIRC the Lords can bounce this back (with good reason) to the Commons, by the time this goes back and forth a couple of times the media will be in a good frenzy about it. The fact that Gordon Brown had to do a deal with another political party to get this through is not going down well [bbc.co.uk]:
I for one am hoping this gets pushed back by the Lords.
--- Back to the article ---
Got a decent reference? Seriously, that link is to the 'Daily Mail', the sensationalism in that paper is renowned. Even its founder (Lord Northcliffe) said its winning formula is to give readers: 'a daily hate [indopedia.org]'. This is the same paper that pays foreign people to break the law [blogspot.com], so they can report about how East Europeans are 'destroying Britain'.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the Fox Hunting Ban? The House of Lords blocked the ban, and Tony B.Liar pushed it through anyway on the crest of a popular mandate - it was an election promise, it was a class issue, the lords had only blocked it cos' they were all evil nasty fox hunters etc...
But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. We handed him a precedent to sweep aside the objections of the only body that could act as a brake on his ambitions. And paid the price years later when he took us into an illegal war - a price that is still being paid. What makes you think that Tony's understudy is going to hesitate for a moment to use the same power to force his own pet projects through?
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
If there's enough of an uproar about it, it won't take much before some of those voting for it starts worrying about their re-election and vote against it if it's sent back to the Commons.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Funny)
Wow - I think that is the only time I've ever seen somebody try to trump tabloid "evidence" with a blog post...
Not saying that I disagree with the point that the Daily Mail is junk =)
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
Oliver Cromwell - died in 1658, his regime was overthrown in 1660.
George III - ruled with a majority in the elected Parliament.
Seems the system worked during all those cases.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Interesting)
We did get rid of him. Shut him quietly away and his son took over. Said son did bugger all because he was a lazy fat drunken gluttonous lecherous oxygen thief, so Parliament ran the country. During this period our Empire in Canada was attacked by the United States; in response we invaded and burned Washington to the ground. We were also at war with Napoleon Bonaparte, whose total defeat ushered in a century of British global hegemony. Not bad going, for a country being run while the king's in the loony bin and the regent's in bed with a hangover.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The House of Lords aren't "rulers". They don't even have any power to prevent the House of Commons from passing a law - the Parliament Act of 1911 (and it's subsequent replacements) effectively took away the Lords power by asserting the supremacy of the Commons and allowing them to override the Lords at any point. It is considered bad form to do so without trying to address the concerns raised by the Lords and voting on an act again in both chambers, and so it's only been used a handful of times since 1911, but it's up to the Commons.
Even before the Parliament Act the Lords had for a long time had their powers severely restricted, as the governments of the time tended to have ways of forcing the Lords into submission on more than one occasion. The Parliament Act itself was passed, after having previously been rejected by the Lords, by getting George V to agree to create a large number of new liberal peers (that would then get seats in the Lords) to essentially stack the Lords in favor of the Parliament Act.
We can argue about the benefit of having a non-elected chamber, but as non-elected chambers go, comparing the House of Lords to despotic rulers is at best ignorant.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Funny)
All three renowned for being upstanding members of the house of Lords?
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
The House of Lords can send legislation back to the House of Commons for a re-think but ultimately, the Government can force the will of the House of Commons through by invoking the Parliament Act.
All the House of Lords can do is delay things, which means they can prevent bad laws being rushed through without anyone knowing about them but they can't prevent the elected members getting their way in the end.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
(IANAL, but I'm married to one, and one of the first things they drill into UK law students when dealing with constitutional law is that they better not ever write on an exam that it's unwritten).
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Informative)
The difference that distinguishes it to written constitutions is that there is no single document that outlines the framework of government. Rather, it is much like the common law itself.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Funny)
So essentially you're saying it is like Microsoft Windows. That should go down well here.
Parent
Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, let's rewrite the analogy in more /. terms. The Americans - and many other countries - have monolithic constitutions. Ours is modular - a mass of different reform acts and statutes and precedents, on top of the Monarch E2 microconstitution. Britain's running on Hurd, thank you very much.
Parent
It's a long, long time (Score:5, Insightful)
I would ask the grandparent how much he would like to be imprisoned for a month and ten days, only to be dumped back on the streets having no idea of why, no legal right to be told why and a scant chance of limited compensation. Can you imagine the effect on your family, your job, your reputation? This allows the state to destroy individuals with only limited checks and balances.
There isn't a day now where I don't thank god for the House of Lords injecting, unbelievably, some sanity into Parliament.
Parent
At least... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only barbarians would ship their alleged criminals to some overseas outpost then claim they had no recourse to the laws of the country...
Parent
Re:At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:At least... (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right. Austrailians would never do anything like that [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:At least... (Score:5, Interesting)
In particular, many people were transported for stealing food during the Irish famine, when it was literally that or starve to death with your family. As it turned out this wasn't much of a deterrent; in Australia you'd at least be fed.
Parent
Re:At least... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
As opposed to the US ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, I forgot - they're not being held by the police, and they're not actually in America. My bad.
Jose Padilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, of course, 42 days in police custody, still with all human-rights privileges and in a standard jail subject to standard civilian law is a significantly better deal than several years in a foreign military jail, with questionable legal status, and subject to military law and "process". I very very much doubt these suspects, held for 42 days maximum, will be tortured and humiliated, either.
In other words, glass-house-dwellers, throw no stones...
Simon.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The tragic thing about all this, is that it won't get through the upper chamber and Gordon Brown knows this. His problem was that losing the vote would show him up as a weak leader, and not in control of his own party. This way he'll get to blame the unelected House of Lords (many of whom he and Tony appointed under their People's Peers programme) for the legislation not being passed. [guardian.co.uk]
Ironically, we may end up with all the negative effects from such legislation without any of the (supposed) benefits - i.e. actually being able to lock people up. World + dog outside the UK will believe that it's been passed, removing us even further from what little moral high ground we've got left to stand on and eroding UK citizens' perceptions of their own liberty. This is perhaps the first time I've ever said this, but thank god for the unelected, undemocratic House of Lords. Without them, this would already be law.
Am I simplifying this? Probably, yes. It just seems that regardless of the merits or otherwise of this legislation (and no Slashdot, I'm not arguing in favour of it), getting the vote through the House of Commons was more about saving Brown's arse than actually achieving anything.
Parent
Slashdot, as usual, can't wait to bash Britain. (Score:5, Insightful)
I could understand it if
Of course, it's posted by samzenpus, who seems to have a particular dislike of the UK.
Billing the prisoners (Score:5, Funny)
42 days (Score:5, Funny)
With two words, I destroy your argument (Score:5, Insightful)
or how about: "Abu Ghraib"
The US certainly has no moral high ground. They rape, torture, and sexually humiliate *suspected* terrorists, in a foreign land, out of sight of the people because they're so ashamed of what they do in the people's name.
If (I'm not, but *if*) I was a suspected terrorist, I'd take 42 days maximum in a standard UK jail, held under standard UK law by standard UK law-enforcement over indefinite detainment in a foreign military prison, with no legal status, and denied the right of habeus corpus. I'd prefer to be jailed in the UK rather than tortured and sexually abused by the US military.
Just saying. I continue to hope that the American people abhor and remove this stain on their countries honour, but it seems to be getting worse, not better.
Simon.
Parent
Re:With two words, I destroy your argument (Score:5, Interesting)
Abu Ghraib may have been an isolated "incident" (though an awful lot of people would have needed to conveniently ignore what happened there...), but Guantanamo Bay is precisely current US policy.
If you are a citizen in the US, they'll simply fabricate evidence and send you to be tortured [nytimes.com] in one of the less squeamish regimes that the US has links with (eg: Syria)...
Given the amount of illegal wiretapping, the removal of habeus corpus for non-citizens, the policy of torturing suspected terrorists coupled with the ability of the president to arbitrarily designate someone a terrorist, (I could go on and on...), I find the implications disturbing in the extreme.
I don't agree with the 42 days thing, but I think the glass-houses line really does apply here...
Simon.
Parent
Re:With two words, I destroy your argument (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK suffered at the hands of terrorists (these terrorists mainly funded by US organisations like Noraid [wikipedia.org], actually) for several decades. Nothing like Gitmo was ever set up - people committing acts of terrorism were in fact denied the status of terrorists and charged as common murderers, then locked up in civilian jails if found guilty under the normal due process of law.
Now the UK was hardly blameless in the actions that started the terrorism, but it tried to maintain a diplomatic solution (even engaging with the political wing of the terrorist organisations) that eventually more or less worked. Throughout "the troubles" in Northern Ireland, even though the military were called in to keep order, all suspected terrorists were processed through a civilian court.
There is no possible defence of the existence of Guantanamo Bay. None. Yet it remains the policy of the US government. The contrast between the UK and the US approach to terrorism is actually quite startling.
Simon.
Parent
Re:With two words, I destroy your argument (Score:5, Informative)
Really? [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Tories vs Labor (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that they also argue against the governments attempts to have private health bosses take over failing hospitals, even though it was the Tories who started the privatisation of publicly owned services in the first place.
Personally I don't think there's much difference between the Labour Party and the Conservatives any more. That's no big deal, in spite of what whichever one isn't in power says about the others failings, they end up doing almost exactly the same things.
Parent
it's without CHARGE, not without trial (Score:5, Informative)
As I understand it, the current limit is 28 days, so they're just tacking on an extra two weeks, and according to the BBC, they want the right on a "contingency basis" when the crime in question is particularly complicated and time-consuming to unravel, so they can figure out who's who and know whom to charge and whom to let go. An example they give is when there are international complications, e.g. the police need to get info from another country's police, immigration, or security services, which, of course, can take an annoyingly long time, since you have to rely on purely voluntary cooperation (no English judge can compel a French police caption, or a Saudi immigration agency, or the FBI).
In other words, as a general rule, the 28-day limit stays in effect, but in certain unusual circumstances -- e.g. something like the London bombing, evidence that some major operation has taken place, or is about to take place -- then the government can raise the 28-day limit to 42 days temporarily. Even if the limit is raised, a judge needs to sign off on applying it to any particular individual. Parlaiment can step in at any time after the limit is raised and reverse it. And, in any event, the raising expires after 60 days.
I dunno, when you look at the bill in detail, it seems rather, well, moderate. Not quite like the massive Armageddon / burning pile of civil liberties / return of the Gestapo, Inquisition, and the rack that lots of Chicken Littles seem to think it is. *shrug*
Parent
Re:it's without CHARGE, not without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
It was supposed to be used against terrorists and organised crime but is now finding use against minor criminals such as litter droppers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm [bbc.co.uk]
In one memorable case, a council invoked it to spy on a family to see if they lived close enough to the school they wanted their child to attend.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm [bbc.co.uk]
I have no confidence that this new power to hold people without charge will be restricted to circumstances where it is absolutely required. The actual text of the act is remarkably vague on when and how it should be applied.
Parent
Re:it's without CHARGE, not without trial (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:it's without CHARGE, not without trial (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the old "boiling a frog" [wikipedia.org] situation. This government continually chips away at civil liberties, a little at a time. It's two steps forward, one step back, but it's still a steady march towards authoritarianism.
Parent