42 day detention

[Ruprect]

What a joke. This is a dark day for democracy.

[swamp]

Gordon Brown is taking his Priministership to the brink. He knows he's bottom of the polls and he's taking risks and doesn't care.

If he'd lost today he would have a Labour leadership election on his hands, which he'd lose. Trouble is Labour are skint and are not in any position to fight an election.

[OwlHoot]

A commentary titled Was victory worth it for Brown? includes the following extract:

the police will be able to ask the home secretary to ask Parliament if an individual can be locked up for 42 days without any charges being brought.

So, depending on what "asking Parliament" will involve, it might not be as bad as it sounds, because the Speaker of the House of Commons has always had the constitutional power to order the arrest and imprisonment of anyone in the country, and in that event Habeas Corpus has never applied (unless the arrestee is an MP).

Mind you, this procedure probably hasn't been used for yonks (perhaps not since the arrest of Charles 1 !), and I think traditionally the Speaker would only be acting on the collective will of Parliament, expressed by a vote.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

1. I don't have much faith in the cops/Mi5 whoever. When the cream of our boys and girls were supposed to be looking out for us one of them was illegally weeing in the garden and missed the suspect. No matter, they caught up and shot him 7 times later.

2. A really alarming number of people in this country seem to think that it is fine for the Police to shoot anyone and/or lock them up as the Cops must know who is dodgy. There is also an alarming number who seem to think summary execution by the police is a fair penalty for (allegedly) having a dodgy visa.

3. The terrorists are winning - they are successfully eroding our freedoms - but Gordon is helping them.

4. I mean this sincerely - I would rather risk being blown up than live in a country where the Police can lock you up for 42 days just because they want to.

5. There are some evidence gathering and procedural issues that need bringing up to date.

6. Lawyers and the justice system (with a few honourable exceptions) are lazy, slef serving scum.

[hyperD]

Whs

[hyperD]

The difference AFAIK is that if this new legislation came in they wouldnt have to present a legal argument for detaining a person for 42 days.

Bit like councils demanding inspection of your homes without recourse.

What next? South West Train guards demanding "Ihre papieren, bitte!"

Treasonous feckers the lot of them...

Anyone want to raise their blood pressure? Then read this:

Squandered

[Churchill]

What a joke. This is a dark day for democracy.

We don't live in a democracy!

At least the NornIron lot will get a few quid. Which is nice.

Ironic to think that if this had been brought in 20 years ago half of their lot would've suffered the consequences...

Ah well.

Mind you, this procedure probably hasn't been used for yonks (perhaps not since the arrest of Charles 1 !), and I think traditionally the Speaker would only be acting on the collective will of Parliament, expressed by a vote.

Which has been shown, can be bought...

[lambrini_socialist]

so Brown just scraped through with suppport from UKIP (the political wing of the BNP) and Ann F#cking Widdecombe? christ on a bike, that's grim.

[Bagpuss]

For 42 days you have to be a serious terror suspect, with sign off from MI5, the house of Lords, the Home secretary, Attorney General etc.
There is no way anyone but the most serious terrorist suspect is going to get hit by this. Only in this country could you have people shouting unfair in defence of those who want to blow us up.

[lambrini_socialist]

Only in this country could you have people shouting unfair in defence of those who want to blow us up.

those accused of wanting to blow someone up.