| Author |
Message |
< Echatio ~ 42 days without charge? |
Increase number of days you can be held without charge from 28 to 42?
| Yes |
| [ 2 ] 14% |
| |
| No |
| [ 12 ] 85% |
| |
Total Votes : 14 |
|
| Mozza |
 Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:03 pm |
 |
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| sam |
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:36 am |
|
|
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mozza |
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:32 am |
|
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| sam |
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:49 am |
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mozza |
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:54 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 2272
Location: 4.815 162.342
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| sam |
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:10 am |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| stanley_kubrick |
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 5:50 pm |
|
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mozza |
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:38 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 2272
Location: 4.815 162.342
|
| The most important word in that sentence being might |
_________________
lost in music |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Davie |
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:40 am |
|
|
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" |
|
| Back to top |
|
| mein crustacean |
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:15 pm |
|
|
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! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| stanley_kubrick |
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:16 pm |
|
|
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Asterix* |
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:53 pm |
|
|
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? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CAPT-CUD |
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:35 pm |
|
|
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 hasn’t been a single case where the current 28 days wasn’t long enough to gather more evidence to charge someone. I guess Gordon Brown just want to push though a piece of legislation that Tony wasn’t 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! |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Asterix* |
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:09 pm |
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CAPT-CUD |
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:20 pm |
|
|
|
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, you’re 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! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
