6 weeks unexpected accomodation

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

Is 42 days too long?

Yes
21
91%
No
2
9%
 
Total votes: 23
martin
level5
level5
Posts: 3210
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:37 pm

6 weeks unexpected accomodation

Postby martin » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:19 am

Well just a couple of days ago britain introduced the most draconian anti terror laws in the world, if you don't know about it I'll give you some background:

Before this the longest a person could be held without charge by the police was 28 days, this allowed the police to properly investigate and interview the suspect (apparently once someone is charged they can no longer be interviewed) - no one has ever been held for the full 28 days and many policemen say that longer is not needed, but a couple of very high ranking ones say that longer *may* be needed at some future date.
So, it was proposed to up the limit to 42 days detention without charge, this became one of those really big issues that's all over the news and the politicians are talking about every time you see them, Gordon Brown (UK prime minister, who is also the most unpopular prime minister ever) chose this as a point to stake his reputation one.
What does everyone think? What are the laws in other countries? How much do you hate Gordon Brown?

Personally I think it's amassive breach of freedoms and human rights, also a new bill is currently being discussed which would allow the police to interview people once charged - so the 42 days detention is useless once that comes in.

Anyway, the bill got passed, so don't come to Britain unless you want to risk 6 weeks unexpected accomodation

PS:: I just noticed, the bill was passed by the house of commons, it still has to pass the house of lords where political commentators are saying it's almost certain to be thrown out, but parliament could still use the "parliament act" to force it thorough the house of lords and onto the statute books
User avatar
jelco
level5
level5
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Cygnus X-1
Contact:

Postby jelco » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:27 am

42? Someone's a bit of a large DNA fan...

That's right, me. :P

To the point: yes, 42 seems like very long, however I think the bill was fueled by some recent events which caused them to think it was necessary. I don't really follow British affairs that closely, so maybe you could give some info about that?

Jelco
"The ships hung in the sky much the same way that bricks don't."
- Douglas Adams
User avatar
rus|Mike
level5
level5
Posts: 2750
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:52 pm
Location: Russia, St. Petersburg

Postby rus|Mike » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:36 am

Well, here you can be kept maximum of 3 days without charge :P Sucks to be English, eh? :P

What do I think? Be prepared to be kept for 6 weeks and then let out with some minor excuses :lol:

42 days... very democratic :lol:
martin
level5
level5
Posts: 3210
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:37 pm

Postby martin » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:38 am

Not really, there haven't been any terrorist attacks in Britain for a while, and they've never needed more than 28 days, I think the closest anyone has come is maybe 21 - so clearly 42 days in urgently needed :P
Also, this is 42 days detention without charge, if they turn up at your door, arrest you without charge (something I wouldn't cooperate with) keep you for 6 weeks, and then at the end they charge you for a crime you haven't done and hold you for even longer, then you go through a trial (and I doubt suspected terrorists get bail) and finally 10 weeks after they arrested you you're released.
How much of an impact is that likely to have had on your life? You've now lost your job unless you have a very forgiving boss, you haven't been earning any money so you're behind on paying bills and rent, you can;t afford them becasue you haven't been earning money... this kind of thing could ruin your life.

And yes Mike, yay for democracy in England ¬¬
GENERATION 22:The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:54 am

People seem to forget a major thing about being part of the UK. You don't have rights. You are not a citizen. You are a subject, and technically as such you have no rights bar what the Queen grants you.

You want rid of such nonsense, you'd have to become an actual democracy or republic.
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
MikeTheWookiee
level4
level4
Posts: 657
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: Kashyyyk / Cambridge (commuting)

Postby MikeTheWookiee » Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:44 pm

It's a damn good thing this bill is never going to get past the Lords. Apparently, they've never actually needed to use the 28 days they've got already (which I was against too by the way), despite it being the compromise timespan when they tried, around a year or so ago, pushing for 90 days without charge!

Let's face it - if you can get permission to get someone taken away for that length of time without charge, then you must have some pretty strong evidence in the first place! Or maybe we'll then be offered the chance to win rewards for supplying evidence against (more like denouncing) suspected terrorists / commies / foreign spies / people who didn't vote for Gordon / etc, so that we can get them taken away and questioned properly.

As well as the obvious 42-days malarkey, it also (so I've read somewhere else - I don't have a link / reference handy so it may be a bit off) does all sorts of things in the background, allowing Parliament the final say over a few things relating to terrorism charges, rather than the courts. I.e. one of the fundamental things - the judges and the Government are separate entities, and don't try to take over each others' jobs - is now in tatters.

Don't forget that so far, this is only against suspected terrorists. Almost all other crimes they've still only got 24 hours to charge you or release you. Unfortunately, they're widening the scope of terrorism to include far more things which aren't. Remember the Walter Wolfgang incident? They took him away under authority of the Terrorism act.

Buck Frown, etc.
martin
level5
level5
Posts: 3210
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:37 pm

Postby martin » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:08 pm

thing is, this is only against suspected terrorists, so it's stupid not to be able to question people while charged - as soon as you're held for more tha the 24 hours you know it's suspected terrorism :P
GENERATION 22:The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:27 pm

If you don't have enough evidence to making a fairly convincing case within 28 days I can't see how you can honestly justify detaining someone for longer than that.

And as a response to MikeTheWookiee I have to agree, I still think it's insane that Australia seems so opposed to becoming a republic. The monarchy doesn't care about us anyway but unfortunately the Queen refusing to get involved in matters seems to be an excuse to do nothing maybe if they actually came out and told us to stop asking to be hand-held then maybe we might do something about it.
User avatar
Pox
level5
level5
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:23 am
Location: Melbourne

Postby Pox » Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:58 pm

vanarbulax wrote:If you don't have enough evidence to making a fairly convincing case within 28 days I can't see how you can honestly justify detaining someone for longer than that.

And as a response to MikeTheWookiee I have to agree, I still think it's insane that Australia seems so opposed to becoming a republic. The monarchy doesn't care about us anyway but unfortunately the Queen refusing to get involved in matters seems to be an excuse to do nothing maybe if they actually came out and told us to stop asking to be hand-held then maybe we might do something about it.


I think if Rudd gets a proper referendum off the ground (as in "Republic. Yes/No" rather than Howard's "Stay as is/Crazy-sounding Plan #1/Crazy-sounding Plan #2/Crazy-sounding Plan #3"), there's a good chance it'll go through: I think most Australians would be for it now.
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Fri Jun 13, 2008 2:30 pm

The question read (according to wikipedia)

"To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

While not sounding that crazy Australia had a long history of rejecting alterations to our constitution often under the idea (sometimes with merit) that if politicians want to change the constitution it probably for their own benefit. I think what many people might have objected to is that Parliament gets to vote on the President instead of being elected directly by the people much like the American system currently.
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:13 pm

Ah but there would be where your thinking is wrong. America is not a democracy, it's a representative one. Which from what the rest of the world can work out means all your votes are ignored, and whomever has the backing of the biggest companies gets to run the place into the ground. Examples? Certainly, the past 8 years. Well at least the first 4 parts of it anyway. Second time around they actually voted him in again.

Deserve all the hell they get for that.

No way of government is flawless, but the US way of doing things doesn't work. The Irish way is a bit of a mess. France and Germany seem to have the right idea, but are missing a few things.

Erm, Canada without being part of the commonwealth anyone?
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:24 pm

Umm my brief understanding of Canadian prime ministerial elections places it no better than the Australian equivalent and have even less constitutional protection unless I am mistaken.

And come on they have "first past the post" voting at least Australia has preferential voting, which highly amused me when the New Scientist was proposing basically the same system for the American government as if it was some abstract out there idealogical concept which was just thought of by the top minds in political science.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:40 pm

Pfft! Rights in the UK? You just think you've got rights. Obviously, you've never read any parts of the EU Constitu... er, Lisbon Treaty. Besides, you're not in the UK anymore, that doesn't exist. :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
Rkiver
level5
level5
Posts: 6405
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 10:39 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Postby Rkiver » Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:42 pm

Well with Ireland's referendum saying no to the Lisbon Treaty, it wont be ratified for any EU country. Go Ireland for saying "Piss off". :)
Uplink help: Read the FAQ
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Fri Jun 13, 2008 4:20 pm

Rkiver wrote:Well with Ireland's referendum saying no to the Lisbon Treaty, it wont be ratified for any EU country. Go Ireland for saying "Piss off". :)

It was funnier around here. The treaty was just approved by the parliament, with no referendum, and despite the fact that it had been an electoral promise from the government, because they were affraid folk would say "no" and it wouldn't look well if the treaty hosts did not approve it :P (or something to that effect).


What was this thread about again...?

Oh, right jail time... err... No idea!

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests