optimo home


news
hung-up
echatio
ontour
optimo music
blog
podcasts
gallery who's played nine nine records discography
goodies
shoptimo
faq
where
facebook facebook twitter mailing list press contact
 

WELCOME TO THE OPTIMO (ESPACIO) BULLETIN BOARD - ESTABLISHED 11:11:2000

love is the message
Author Message

<  Echatio  ~  42 days without charge?

Increase number of days you can be held without charge from 28 to 42?

Yes  
14%
  [ 2 ]  14%
 
No  
85%
  [ 12 ]  85%
 

Total Votes : 14
Mozza
Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:03 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 2272 Location: 4.815 162.342
Wot do you think?

I think its very concerning, especially when its completely politically motivated and is not based on any advice from the security services - no senior official in the police has asked for this.

nu-labour's apparent disregard for civil rights set to continue?

the politics of fear at play once again.

_________________
lost in music
View user's profile Send private message
sam
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:36 am Reply with quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2006 Posts: 347 Location: Glasgow
i haven't heard all about this but does it not require approval from the home secretary to be held for the full 42 days?
View user's profile Send private message
Mozza
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:32 am Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 2272 Location: 4.815 162.342
Well as far as I understand it basically means that parliament has to vote to oppose the act on each case - i.e if parliament passes this then it means people will be held for 42 days UNLESS they then vote against it on a particular case. It also doesnt appear appropriate that details of such cases would be discussed in parliament in anycase - they are not judges.

Basically it totally goes against the principle of innocent until proven guilty, seems that it would be the other way about now.

It just smacks of desperation, first Blair wanted 90 days and was defeated, then they wanted 50 days, now its 42? Its unhealthy an obsession of this government.

_________________
lost in music
View user's profile Send private message
sam
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:49 am Reply with quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2006 Posts: 347 Location: Glasgow
this is bad enough, but there's all the stuff that we're not meant to hear about that goes on, like the grey sites (think that's what they were called) that were discovered across eastern europe last year, where terror suspects were sent to be (allegedly) tortured. Not sure if the UK was proven to be involved in actually sending people to these places, but the American planes were certainly stopping off here en-route, in Prestwick quite frequently i think.

bad enough that Johnny Terror Suspect can be held for so long on so little evidence, even more concerning when he starts to take trips to Poland in CIA registered 747's...
View user's profile Send private message
Mozza
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:54 am Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 2272 Location: 4.815 162.342
I know its outrageous. Also this is all over the news today

''CIA destroyed interrogation tapes''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7132000.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2223738,00.html

_________________
lost in music
View user's profile Send private message
sam
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:10 am Reply with quote
Joined: 14 Dec 2006 Posts: 347 Location: Glasgow
read the link to the bbc news and got distracted by this in the box on torture methods:

"Belly slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury"

i'm sure this is a lot worse than they make it sound, but come on, Belly Slap?! I'm sure Bin Laden's crapping himself... after the belly slap they probably rub the top of your head really hard with their knuckles
View user's profile Send private message
stanley_kubrick
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:50 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Dec 2006 Posts: 650 Location: The Belgian Congo
Well the greatest possible danger arising from bringing this in is that an innocent person might lose 42 days of freedom.

The greatest possible danger arising from not bringing this in is that someone might commit an act of mass murder.

_________________
I've met the man in the street and he's a cunt - Sid Vicious
View user's profile Send private message
Mozza
Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:38 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 2272 Location: 4.815 162.342
The most important word in that sentence being might

_________________
lost in music
View user's profile Send private message
Davie
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:40 am Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 415 Location: Glasvegas....at last !
Is there a specific reason for the length to be 42 ? Just out of curiosity.
Why not 50,60 or 364 ?

_________________
"Im just the doctor, i didn't make the needle sharp"
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mein crustacean
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:15 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 699
it's really funny when politicians are asked to say what length they thinks reasonable. they shift about uncomfortably while they pull a number out of their arse.

Is post charge questioning not the simple solution to this problem?

_________________
The cake is a lie!
View user's profile Send private message
stanley_kubrick
Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:16 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 13 Dec 2006 Posts: 650 Location: The Belgian Congo
Well if someone was DEFINETELY going to commit an act of mass murder, dont you think 42 days is a bit lenient?

_________________
I've met the man in the street and he's a cunt - Sid Vicious
View user's profile Send private message
Asterix*
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:53 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 Posts: 147 Location: The Lunatic Fringe
stanley_kubrick wrote:
Well if someone was DEFINETELY going to commit an act of mass murder, dont you think 42 days is a bit lenient?


Surely if they knew the person was DEFINITELY (correct spelling btw) going to commit an act of mass murder then they wouldn't need to hold them for 42 days without charge, they would just charge him on day one or two?
View user's profile Send private message
CAPT-CUD
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:35 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 127
Asterix* wrote:
stanley_kubrick wrote:
Well if someone was DEFINETELY going to commit an act of mass murder, dont you think 42 days is a bit lenient?


Surely if they knew the person was DEFINITELY (correct spelling btw) going to commit an act of mass murder then they wouldn't need to hold them for 42 days without charge, they would just charge him on day one or two?


Exactly, there hasnít been a single case where the current 28 days wasnít long enough to gather more evidence to charge someone. I guess Gordon Brown just want to push though a piece of legislation that Tony wasnít able to get passed, to prove a point.
Personally, I think holding a person in custody for a month without the need for evidence is obscene.

_________________
You and your stinking language!
You think I know fucking nothing?
Well, let me tell you, I know fuck all!
View user's profile Send private message
Asterix*
Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:09 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 Posts: 147 Location: The Lunatic Fringe
Me too!

That's what makes the whole Guantanamo Bay scenario even more so very shocking! (but let's not get on to that).
View user's profile Send private message
CAPT-CUD
Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:20 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 127
stanley_kubrick wrote:
Well the greatest possible danger arising from bringing this in is that an innocent person might lose 42 days of freedom.


Isn't that bad enough? A month and a half of being locked up, with real criminals and the threat of violence and sexual assault that goes along with that, when you have effectively done nothing wrong.
Also during this time, you could expect to have stress techniques used on you, including depriving you of sleep in an attempt to break you down, many a false confession has been given in this way.

Also during this time, youíre not working, so would probably lose your job, possibly then lose your house or flat or at least be incurring debt at no fault of your own, so the loss of your personal freedom for a while is really just the start of the problems.

_________________
You and your stinking language!
You think I know fucking nothing?
Well, let me tell you, I know fuck all!
View user's profile Send private message

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT
Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum