Slashdot Mirror
UK Can Now Hold People Without Charge For 42 Days
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."
Is that 42 in base 13?
....as the Bill in question has only been passed by the House of Commons. It's got to go before the House of Lords yet. Many commentators think it is not going to do too well there.
The UK can't now hold people for 42 days without trial - the Bill still needs to pass the House of Lords to become law
At least the English know not to do something like Guantanamo Bay. They tried that 220 years ago, and created Australia.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
The answer to life, the universe and everything now includes the number of days the UK can hold you without charges.
The main aim of the terrorists is to make people afraid to carry on normally. This is a perfect example of their success and their co-conspirators are the Labour party. The only way to respond to this is to work to get them out. Vote Liberal (or even Conservative if you have to.. not that they haven't been responsbile for previous terror legislation) and get involved as much as you possibly can in fighting against Labour.
Disclaimer: I have lived a year in the UK, (specifically, Lancaster, England) and have nothing against the people...
But remember, despite people bitching about the US' policies, we still have among the world's most stringent policies regarding the rights of the accused. I was always shocked by most UK citizens attitudes regarding free speech and the right of the accused. While they, obviously, abhorred the idea of someone being put to the death they saw nothing wrong with imprisoning someone without charges for 30 days.
At any rate, I'm sorry this happened =/. I had hoped for better from our friends across the pond.
... where it's currently 6+ years and counting.
Oh wait, I forgot - they're not being held by the police, and they're not actually in America. My bad.
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
We don't need terrorists anymore, we are doing their job for them. Thanks Gordon.
As mentioned above, the bill has to make it through the house of lords yet, and since the Lords are usually the "conscience" of the legal process in the UK (weird, but true), it's highly unlikely to make it.
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.
Physicists get Hadrons!
To hell with facts, let's just post grossly misrepresented stories. The police *can't* hold terror suspects for 42 days, until this is passed by the House of Lords, which is unlikely to happen.
/. got similar stories in the US so utterly wrong, for example if some congressman from Bumfuck, Iowa proposed the death penalty for people caught with more than 1g of cannabis, and /. reported it as a huge roundup and mass execution of dope smokers.
I could understand it if
Of course, it's posted by samzenpus, who seems to have a particular dislike of the UK.
Did they pass the bill for charging prisoners for their Information Retrieval Procedures yet? Is that next week?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Besides it being the answer to the ultimate question, why was 42 chosen and not 43 or 41?
"Guantanamo bay"
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.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Fellow dis-United Kingdommers: welcome to the 51st State.
Now, the Tories have become the more liberal party like the Dems in the USA and are vehemenetly trying to prevent the degradation of Habeas Corpus principles. The Labor party (which used to be more left-leaning Jimmy Carter type) has turned into a Neocon haven under Blair and Brown.
Except, of course, the bill has to get through the Lords. Which it almost certainly won't. Even Lord Goldsmith (ex attorney general, promoted to Lords) is against it.
Then it has to be voted on again by the Commons - which could be in a few months time. Only then will it become law (ignoring formality royal assent, and possible rare use of Parliament Act).
Who knows what Brown's ability to force sick MPs into the house to vote, and what deals N. Ireland MPs will insist upon then?
I honestly think a few months down the line, when it comes to the crunch, the government could loose this, and force a vote of no confidence vote on Brown.
In any case UK is still a way off from 42 day detention......
echo $SIGNATURE
they interrogate the suspects and expect to get the answer to everything?
Well, since the people we elect are essentially Kang or Kodos who try to pass whatever laws they like without giving the public a chance to vote on the matter, I quite like the idea of the house of lords (harder to bribe some rich bugger than the corrupt political class intent on filling their own pockets. Yes, some Lords were once those corrupt politicals, but they are comparatively rich and settled now).
There are many things wrong with our system, but having some kind of 'second opinion' of government policy is not a bad idea.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
My grandfather killed your grandfather nyah nyah lets fight...
idiot
Looks like the Brits finally have acknowledged that 42 is the answer to everything.
Open Source Alternatives
Wasn't Jose Padilla held without charges for a number of years in South Carolina?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Sure, the poor sod was billed 12500 for bed and ledging...
But that was only subtracted from the 200k+ he got as compensation.
Which makes this a complete counterexample.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
The bill defines how long you can hold someone without charging him with a crime. That's got nothing to do with how long, after he has been charged, it can take before he is tried.
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*
The Lords are only allowed to send Bills back to the Commons twice. They have no power other than to force debate and thought. It's not part of the "unwritten constitution", it's the Parliament Acts of 1911(Liberal) and 1949(Labour). The British constitution is mostly written, it's just written all over the place.
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.
42 holds you!
Hasn't anyone noticed that the two countries are ACTING IN CONCERT?
The US will 'try out' one kind of suppression of liberty, while the UK will try out another. If one works then both countries will eventually adopt it. It's just like the spy agreements to spy on our respective populations.
Both are now as bad as each other. I think that you will find that the advisers in government who are doing this talk to each other, work closely with each other, and probably jet across the pond once a week to visit each other and see how their respective plans are working....
But I guess the rules are different for America and George Bush than the rest of the world.
As for Abu Graib, what a cheap shot. That abuse was reported by military personnel and the perpetrators are doing hard time.
Meanwhile, in the USA, actual criminal suspects have to be charged in 48 hours or released. But keep patting yourselves on the back Britons if it makes you feel better.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Wow, I once wanted to visit the UK. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some criminal mastermind or something. It's just the idea that I could be out from the hotel enjoying a pint at a local pub and suddenly find myself dragged off to a cell where they do god knows what to me for 40 days. All because I walked past some camera that either glitched or simply that I look like Ali Mohammed Al'Mujahidin (he looks just like a cracker from southern cali for some reason). I have the not only the joy of losing my job because I was on vacation a touch too long but then the bastards are going make me pay for it once they realize I'm some programmer from south western United States?
Treatment like that is why I don't vacation in Pakistan, Egypt or China. Thanks for the warning about the whole 42 days issue, but the idea of having to pay for the pleasure of being screwed by some daft Bobbies is more then enough to ensure I'll never visit the UK.
It's been hardly 60 years since millions died fighting for freedom. Does there have to be a genocide every three generations?
Time to find me a new country.
There is also the fact that this is very likely to be in breach of EU human rights act.
Even if this does pass the Lords (unlikely), the European Courts will take interest and may very well overturn it. Remember that the British Courts & Parliment are answerable to Europe.
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
How can a man be convicted based on hearsay?
In Brasil, a jury decision can (AFAIK) be overturned due to "lack of evidence".
Isn't this the case in the UK and the US (from where I've also heard of people being convicted due to hearsay)?
It shocks me that a man under trial is completely at the mercy of those 12 people.
They could just shoot you as you're rushing to catch your morning train...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
In addition to all the hype surrounding this, at least there is a legal framework. Bear in mind that the US uses its Guantanamo Bay as a jail for indefinite detention with no access to a lawyer. I kind of prefer the UK version, no?
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
True enough with regard to civil liberties (although preservation of the ancient right of habeus corpus always seems pretty small 'c' conservative to me), but no one would mistake the Labour party under Blair, or particularly under Brown, as the party of small government and low taxation!
A lot of people have already pointed out that it smplu isn't the case that this can now happen because the bill is no where near becoming a law, and is highly unlikely to ever do so. But even if this bill does become law it would still be wrong to say that people could be held for 42 days without charge, because all this bill seeks to do is create a structure for a detention of that length to happen rather than to provide the authority for it to actually happen. In order to use this power there would need to be extensive consultation with independent judges and votes in parliament, and it can only be suggested in extreme emergencies any way.
If any thing the main problem with this bill is that it will alienate a lot of people from the national.community (which is already pretty shakey) for no real benefit because whenever these powers could be used the pm could have used the civil contingencies act and declared a state of emergency under existing powers. So really we already can hold people for 42 days, as can pretty much any country in the world, if a state of emergency and/or martial law is declared
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
"There is talk of compensation packages available for the falsely accused. "
And since it's cheaper to compensate the poor for their lost wages than the rich, guess who this will be used most heavily against, and who will be all but immune from it!
Why the goverment just doesn't do what communists did around the world after WWII?
I mean, why not just change entire country into the prison/labor camp? For 42 years?
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
See you all in 42 days...
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Count the number of people who live in Detroit. Count the number of US soldiers in Iraq. Then go back to your fucking trailer and learn some maths.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Just as in the US, party affiliation is more about where you grew up and your aspirations than any core beliefs. There are many far-right Labour MPs (like John Reid) and there are many quite left wing Conservatives - very left wing by US standards. The new Mayor of London - not Lord Mayor of the City, please note - is a pro-European Conservative whose social views are so liberal that he could never get elected in the US. Margaret Thatcher had a soft spot for nasty dictators just so long as they did what she wanted, but she would have seen straight through the neocons because at heart she was a Little Englander. The nearest UK equivalent to Barack Obama - David Lammy - is Labour but would fit in well to any of the mainstream parties.
Unfortunately for us, the most influential British political party is the Rupert Murdoch Party, one man one vote and he has the vote. Illiberal legislation is drafted with an eye to getting Murdoch approval. The House of Lords doesn't give a shit about Murdoch (or Rothermere, or the Barclay Brothers, the other right wing media owners). Therefore, they can carry on doing their proper job. But mainstream politicians have bought into the belief that you must have right wing media approval to survive. It seems increasingly sociologists and psephologists don't believe this, but politicians are too busy to listen to them.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It takes more than a couple of fancy dinners to buy a lord's vote.
No sig today...
Remember the Tories practiced internment during the height of the IRA bombings. Hardly a party of liberty.
As a British citizen, I know the only ways to enjoy liberty are to be 'below the radar' of the authorities, and rely on their absolute incompetence. The state machinery is totally unconcerned with the populace, seeing them a way to feed the corporatist machine and nothing more.
As an aside, I read once that Margaret Thatcher was amazed by how "incredibly stupid" Ronnie Reagen was, so I'm not convinced their relationship was that good.
Whereas in the real world UK, I have to get an electrical contractor to fill in form BS 7671:2008 after I have simply replaced a smashed light switch.
The fact that I live out in the sticks and that I cannot find a qualified electrician who will drive out to do such a small job, seems not to bother either the department of information retrieval - erm, I mean the local council planning department, nor my house insurers.
FFS. Replacing a light switch is no more difficult than wiring a plug. If you're dumb enough to cock that up, you probably have someone who looks after you anyway.
Today, I am the Harry Tuttle of electrical wiring.
What I could do with are some really nice ducts to hide my anarcho-lightswitch, before Bob Hoskins and his long-capped friends mark me as a terrorist.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
And people have found it odd that the unelected HoL is doing more to protect the common people than our elected representatives in the HoC.
Though the commons can in extreme circumstances ignore the lords. This has been used for non-extreme circumstances, however. Add to that Tony pumped up the list with cronies and you can see that the bounce back from the lords would be uncertain.
We keep being told there is overwhelming public support for this but I'm yet to meet anyone who thinks it's a good idea. I'd like to know *exactly* wat the question was the government asked that go such a high support rate. I'm guessing based on previous ones they'e weasled their way with it was "Would you support 42 days if we could guarantee your safety from all future attacks and promise only to detain proper terrorists not innocent people?'
The question that showed people apparantly supporting the ID card was along the same lines.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Every time I'm in the UK, they do something new and wonderful that makes me wonder if they read V for Vendetta and thought it was some sort of HOWTO.
What most people seem to be forgetting here is that just because the House of Commons has voted for it doesn't mean that it is law. The bill has to pass the House of Lords, who many people are hoping will not accept it and send it back to the Commons for another reading. At the very least this will prevent it being written into law until after the summer recess. Then even if it does come back to the Lords they are under no obligation to approve it. Only if the House of Lords rejects the bill 3 times can the Commons use the Parliment Act to force it through into law but even then they still need a majority vote to do so. So, all you UK citizens out there, we need to do something about this, write to the House of Lords and ask them to oppose the bill, write to your MPs and tell them you don't want this to be passed into law and get your friends to do the same.
Only if you don't count Iraqis as people. They have lost around 1 million CIVILIANS, which is actually a lot more (per day) than when Saddam was in power.
CCTV on every corner, groups of street toughs viciously beating and killing random passersby, the incredibly fractured English running rampant on the internet (I'm starting to think American English is the more proper form), football riots, George Michael, and now this. Why haven't we been nuked into the ground yet?
That's a slight mis-characterisation of how European law works. Since the Human Rights Act was passed the place this laws validity will be tested is the UK courts. Sure if their are arguments about the UK implementation of the HRA it could still go to the European Court but not on the case in question.
And besides the UK can always derogate from Europe on this if they want. They are still a sovereign country.
You just quoted him.
And it's odd how officially, the taliban were abandoned to recover and troops moved into Iraq.
And your president lied about why.
Isn't that a traitorous lying dumbfuck right there? In charge of your country?
Er, even the article states that his £252k compensation was reduced, on audit, by £12.5k to cover the cost of keeping him for three years - and that in itself is a sum that works out at about what his SSP entitlement would have been over the period in which he was imprisoned, which is likely far less than the cost of actually imprisoning him (prisons being hellishly expensive to run). In short - he still walked away with £240k compensation. The implication that he somehow had to write a cheque himself is grossly misleading.
Moreover, the article is from the Daily "Hate" Mail, the newspaper that defines journalistic standards by contradiction; I'd more or less regard anything it prints as false by default, unless corroborated by a reliable source.
No, they're not - at least, not according to British law. As far as I'm aware (from a year and a half of a law degree), not even the ECtHR can force the British government to change the law - they can award damages against governments, and their opinion can have the effect of rendering such a law unenforceable, but that's all. Meanwhile, because of the longstanding doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, the British courts are estopped from examining the procedures of Parliament at all, despite HRA 1998; even if they find a law to be morally wrong, the most they can do directly is issue a "declaration of incompatibility" - which the government can counter by simply having a minister stand up in the Commons and say "No it isn't". (In fact, as all bills are required to be since HRA'98, this bill will have been declared by the government to be compatible with the ECHR; the onus will be on someone whose human rights have been damaged by it to prove that no such compatibility exists.)
Oh hell, I'll bite.
...
So, it worked? The Iraqi government got their acts together and stopped the sectarian bullshit? Because after all, that's what the surge was about.
No? They're still squabbling and gridlocked? The surge is now acting like a pressure cooker whose lid is going to be loosened because we can't keep that many men there permanently and the violence will blow up again? Phooey.
There seems to be a lot of knee jerk misinformation about this one the 42 days can only be used in *exceptional* circumstances and then they have to bend over backwards on a continual basis...
Personally I'm against it, after 28 days they could just charge someone (with almost anything!) and spend all the time they like while someone is on remand in prison...
I mirror the feelings of veteran labour MP Tony Benn when yesterday he said "I cant believe I would see the day that Magna Carta was repealed"
The reason this got voted through was because Gordon Brown and his chief whips spent days coercing MP's to vote in his favour. This does not prove that the 42-day extension is valid, or even needed, more that Gordon Brown was able to command enough MP votes on an issue, by offering them "incentives".
It is very unlikely this will make it through the House of Lords, there are prominent libertarians there just waiting to pull this apart.
If by some crazy act this actually *does* make it past the house of lords it will be tested in the law courts and the European courts.
Its VERY unlikely this will actually make it into law.
>There is also the fact that this is very likely to be in breach of EU human rights act.
>Even if this does pass the Lords (unlikely), the European Courts will take interest and may very well overturn it. Remember that the British Courts & Parliment are answerable to Europe.
What a confused soul you are. Firstly, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the associated European Court of Human rights are nothing to do with the EU, and nothing to do with the European Parliament.
Secondly, neither the European nor British courts can overutrn an Act of Parliament (assuming it passes in the Lords and becomes an Act): only another Act of Parliament can do that. The absolute most they can do is try and make it more trouble than it's worth, e.g. issue fines that the government can either pay or leave the Council of Europe.
Quick, somebody arrest an MP's or Minister's son/daughter on some charge and keep them incommunicado for 42 days.
Nothing will make a lawmaker retreat from his position than having to experience it himself.
Much like how Roman Engineers were forced to stand under the bridges they built, so that if the bridge breaks, they die first.
Arrest your PM's son/daughter and put them in jail for 42 days without a charge: Oh and sure, you pay them $252K minus boarding costs...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
At first I was shocked to read that also but then I looked at it and you gotta realize that they simply EXTENDED the period in which they could hold terror-suspects in what they call "pre-charge" arrest. So as horrible as that number sounds the headline should read: UK Can Now Hold People 14 Days Longer Without Charge
It is the job of the opposition party to oppose the government. That's how our political system should work. So, the Tories have been a little bemused with how to handle this nu Labour party, who swing too extremes all the time, but never cut the populace a break.
But, the Conservatives do believe in liberty of the individual, they are not socialists, and this law is ludicrous. If there is evidence to detain then charge. If there is no evidence then why detain in the first place.
Labour has run the UK into the ground, and it is perhaps the worst of all western style countries in the world. It is virtually impossible not to break at least one law every week if you step outside your home. They just keep coming up with new laws all the time. It doesn't stop what you would normally consider crime, that is still quite rampant, the police are too busy chasing the easier nu crimes to keep their performance figures high.
-- This message brought to you by the British Toriest Board.
... but the grandparent might have violated a kiddie porn statute or two by encoding a string and then distributing a message which includes the substring "13 rape".
(No, he didn't, really. But it makes you wonder, because "13 rape.jpg" attached to a random photo from your family's digital camera almost certainly runs afoul of at least one kiddie porn statute: it "purports" to be pornography, and if you distribute or possess it that's all she wrote for you, bub.)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
A lot of people are complaining about this law. Why do you hate our country so much? Why do you want to make things easy for scumbag terrorists who want to kill us all in our beds or on our world class public transport?
:(
There will be checks and balances in place for this to make sure that the police do not abuse these powers and that no innocent people suffer from the outcomes. I mean, lets be honest here - why would you want to WALK on a cycle path? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579334.ece) That's just dodgy!
As for the bloke who kept all of his belongings close to him on the tube, he did look a little odd and he had far too much techy stuff on him. (http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html).
The 82 year old who got arrested under the terrorism act at the labour conference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm) was a known trouble maker having already evaded one lawful regime's attempts to bring him to justice under their current laws back in the 40's, so he probably deserved what happened.
And the bloke who recently spent 6 days in a cell (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2282045,00.html) for trying to print a document freely available on the Internet should have known better - why do you REALLY need to print stuff these days?
That's killing trees, that is, and deserves this kind of punishment!
In all of the above cases, these people were set free. And it's not like just being arrested can fuck up your life or anything. Or end up with your DNA on file for life. And I'm sure that most of the MPs voting for this bill know what it's like to spend a night or 6 in prison, so they'd never do that to an innocent person, knowing how badly you can come out of that experience.
We actually NAILED on terroristwith this law already - that uppity bitch won't go writing any more bad poetry in the near future, now will she!?
I mean, you have to understand that in a post 9/11 world, things are _different_ now. Al Kayeeda is really really really scary! Ok, sure, there have been fewer attacks than during the IRA years, but that's not the point here! We need this law so that... uhm...
Hang on a sec... This is the UK right, not Iran? Fuck
"lets not forget, this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs." Not to mention that it's the same country with summary executions on what are basically hunches http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/23/london.tube/index.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300987.html
Yes, "only" 650,000 from March 2003 - March 2007. Well done indeed.
PS. Linear extrapolation would give ~800,000 by this March.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Yes, I'm quite familiar with the rather ridiculous John Hopkins "study". Thanks for reiterating my point.
Where is the variable "Iraqies"? They're people too, aren't they?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
"There is also the fact that this is very likely to be in breach of EU human rights act."
The European Convention on Human Rights is under the auspices of The Council Of Europe, not the EU. There's also a European Charter On Human rights which is from the EU, but it's a political declaration with no legal force.
"Even if this does pass the Lords (unlikely), the European Courts will take interest and may very well overturn it. Remember that the British Courts & Parliment are answerable to Europe. "
The European Court Of Human Rights does not have primacy over the national laws of any member, and the only power they have is expelling transgressors from the Council Of Europe.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I don't think anyone is going to fail to be re-elected for voting for this.
No charge for 42 days? That's 1008 hours!
The iPhone's paltry 300 hours without a charge looks pretty lame now.
boakes.org
Thankfully I live in the United States.
Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP, and will run for re-election on the single issue of fighting the 42 day rule.
Details still emerging, BBC News has some details
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Remember, remember, the fifth of November
Gunpowder treason and plot
Nonsense, that's the kind of stupid excuse you'd think people who gave a fuck about their rights wouldn't swallow.
No, you simply have a retarded attachment to your history that apparently outweighs the need for a Constitution (which you don't have, no matter how many times you crow that an loose assemblage of documents is a "constitution").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
As it happens I rewatched the Daniel Day movie In The Name Of The Father a short time back. It's odd to see, and recall from real life, the aghast reactions to the "Prevention of Terrorism Act" which gave UK police the unprecedented (and almost immediately abused) power to hold suspects without charge for an entire week - 7 days.
That was long enough to obtain at least 11 false convictions pretty much straight away. The modern UK police must be softies, if it takes them six times as long to extract a confession from whomever they decide to detain.
Yes, but this is the country where the police will let you free, with only a caution, if they realize you are not a terrorist, even when you are carrying a 3-inch long locking knife in your carry-on luggage.
That happened to me on January, while I was coming back to Brazil. It's legal to carry that kind of knives in most parts of South America (well, as long as you don't carry them in your carry-on), and it seems the knife was in my laptop bag when I *left* Brazil, because I couldn't even remember when I put it there. That talks a bit about airport security here.
Anyway, what I mean is: yes, they have stronger rules, but no, they won't hold you if they don't have any piece of evidence against you, like they do in American airports.
Ah yes, our fine tradition of having decisions by the people we elect overturned by a bunch of unelected lords.
I'd have more sympathy for that point of view if
Unlike Brown, who has never gone to the people for a mandate, it seems Shadow Home Secretary David Davis (for the non-UK folks: the main opposition party's front bench home affairs spokesman) has just resigned his seat in Parliament to force a by-election, which he will run on a platform of opposition to the 42 days. It seems at least one Member has enough spine to put their money where their mouth is on this issue and bet that the people really don't support the measure.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Guys, you're totally taking this the wrong way... there's a compensation package!
"I'm sorry we trampled all over your rights as a citizen and human being, but here's free room and board for a month and a half."
Including that the UK government admitted its methodology was "robust", and in line with best epidemiological practice?
Loads of (right-wing) people said it was rubbish but no-one pointed out any specific flaws which I think is pretty telling.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
"There is talk of compensation packages available for the falsely accused."
Why? I have a radical idea that could save the government a great deal of money: how about a prompt charge and a speedy trial with a presumption of innocence, standards of evidence that allow the defense to see it, and, hmmm... I know, legal representation?
Crazy, I know, but it might just work.
If it comes from a band of people getting together for self defense, then where does the power come from to detain individuals who have committed no offense. I don't believe I have that power granted me of other individuals so I can't delegate that power to a group of people acting as my defense. If the gov't truly wants to combat terrorism they would not do so by terrorizing the people who instituted the gov't and subjecting them to such illogical laws. Instead the gov't would go after the band(s) without restraint when attacked. It's not that complicated. It's certainly not that complicated for the terrorists.
David Davis, shadow Home Secretary, has resigned his seat as a result of this vote.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm
He will re-fight it on an anti-government intrusion into peoples lives ticket.
Does this sort of thing ever happen in the US?
This item is untrue. As many people have pointed out already, The UK Can NOT Now Hold People Without Charge For 42 Days. Isn't it about time Slashdot changed its headline?
Rules that change based on opinion are a very slippery slope.
To those in the UK, I'm so sorry for you.
You already have the nanny camera system from hell - AND YOU PUT UP WITH IT! It seems like a simple thing now because you aren't doing anything illegal.
If that is your thought process, that's not the point.
Data wants to be free.
Photos want to be published.
Cell phone locations want to be tracked.
Firearms want to be registered so "the government" can come back and take them away.
It was going to have to be said sooner or later...
This is the sort of bill one may expect when a house member stays up too late reading "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Universe".
For centuries after people were imprisoned in Britain for years with little or no trial especially if you happened to have pissed of the king. In fact even trials in medieval times were little more than a rubber stamp for the decision that had already been made by the local sheriff or other judicial representative.
As far as legal rights go I'd far sooner be living today than at any other time in the past. Even in the 19th century things were pretty grim - you could be imprisoned for debt with no food except what visitors brought you. No visitors? Tough , you starved.
You think that selling peerages / giving them away to your mates is a new thing that started with New Labour? Best read a little history, pal....
You could argue that the House of Lords had its origin in William the Conqueror carving up England and handing out bits of it to his people in exchange for help conquering the land in 1066. How do you think the original Lords became nobility in the first place? Down the centuries various best mates/lovers/wealthy bankers of the kings and queens became lords and therefore law makers. Nothing new.
It still has to go through the House of Lords before it can then go to the Queen for Royal Assent, then it becomes an Act of Parliament; it's still a Bill right now.
It's entirely possible the Lords will kick it back to the Commons - the government might not be so lucky on the vote the next time around.
It should be noted the last time a Labour government only just won a vote with the support the Unionists was 1979...
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
SAM: It's a refund... I'm afraid there was a mistake.
MRS. BUTTLE: Mistake?
SAM:(encouraged) Yes. Not my department... I'm only records. It seems that Mr. Buttle was overcharged by Information Retrieval. I don't think they usually make mistakes... but, er... I suppose we're all human.
SAM: Oh... what happened to the...? ...Actually, my bringing this here is rather unorthodox... Usually any payments are made through the central computer... but, er... there were certain difficulties, and rather than cause delay, we thought you might appreciate this now... it being Christmas.
MRS. BUTTLE: My husband's dead, isn't he?
SAM: Er... I assure you Mrs. Buttle, the Ministry is always very scrupulous about following up and eradicating error. If you have any complaints which you'd like to make, I'd be more than happy to send you the appropriate forms.
MRS. BUTTLE: What have you done with his body?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
He dun learned some redneck maths!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YN5q06cSFAg
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Do you actually believe that, or are you just willing to say anything, no matter how obviously nonfactual, in order to support your opinions?
In any event, your statement is ridiculous. I suggest you increase the diversity of your news sources. PRAVDA and Al-Jazeera aren't the end-all and be-all of news reporting, you know.
Here, I'll get you started.
And amazingly, the UK judge who gets the case will "disappear" for 42 days.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
From 'El Reg': Top Tory resigns on principle over 42 days bill?
Your level of ignorance and knee-jerk reactionism is startling.
Yeah, because that's the answer to... everything.
L. Ron Hubbard wrote a 1000 page book about aliens joking in Base 11.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The UK has already done much worse than this. During the troubles in N Ireland the British government could jail anyone they suspected of being affiliated with IRA for as long as they wanted with no charges.
US Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo Prisoners have rights and can challenge their detention in US Civilian Courts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7451139.stm
IX CCXLIX XVII II CLVII CXVI CCXXVII XCI CCXVI LXV LXXXVI CXCVII XCIX LXXXVI CXXXVI CXCII
David Lammy is black but that is actually coincidental. He comes from a difficult background, raised by a single mother, and became a successful lawyer. On entering Parliament, he has risen very rapidly to a ministerial job. So: both extemely bright, politically active and fast rising progessive charismatic black lawyers with difficult family backgrounds who went to Harvard Law School. Good enough for you? If anybody is likely to be the first black British Prime Minister, DL must be in with a chance.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
A few weeks ago, MY friend was held in the UK by the CIA and MI-6 for a total of 3+ days.
She however was NOT a terrorist. She was going to stay at her girlfriends house in the UK.
Her and her girlfriend (who lives in the UK) arrived at the airport, she was then grabbed, and interrogated for 2 days (this was 3 weeks ago). Then they sent her to Canada, where she sat in a max security prison for almost a week. Then they flew her to Nevada where she doesn't even live! SHE HAD TO PAY FOR THE TICKET. (actually her girlfriend did)
So it is my understanding that all the news here is bullshit, and they will screw anyone and everyone over in the name of terrorism, even my best friend I've known for 10+ years - a white lesbian woman with no ties whatsoever to terrorism. She is a good person and your fucked up governments screwed her life up.
Think twice before you think your safe in this new world of "terror".
P.S. hope they dont come kill me and ruin my life for posting this bit of info.
Dj fuQ [url="http://djfuq.org"]djfuq urges you to listen to the beats[/url] [url="http://djfuq.org"]http://djfuq.org[
Of course holding people without charge for 42 days is perfectly acceptable. After all, 42 is the ultimate answer to life, the Universe, and everything!
Tagged theanswertolifeuniverseeverything
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
There's a good chance he's fat, too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Is it any surprise that a former Colonial Power treats people within its border like it used to treat people in its former colonies? Everyone is so short sighted. This country ruled most of the 3rd world till as recently as 55-60 yrs ago. I am sure most of you are not aware of what it is like to live in these colonies. Summary executions, torture, solitary confinement were all too common. Credit the British for first setting up Guantanamo-like prisons for "Dangerous persons". The "Cellular Jail" at Port Blair in Andaman Islands.
British Commoners... you are facing the music that your country aired to the rest of the world. I feel sorry for you, but I am hardly surprised.
Disclaimer: I am an anonymous Indian. I know folks who got jailed for chanting the slogan "Vande mataram" (translates to "Salute the mother [India]") in public.
Some places will be holding people who don't clean up after their dog for 42 days!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Call me blind, but that study seems to suggest even higher numbers of dead Iraqis due to violence. Rounding off, that's 600,000 from March 03 to June 06. The UK survey that you are bashing suggested it took another year for it to rise by just 50,000 while the Lancet study had numbers of around 500 deaths per day.
Or are you just arguing that since Wiki has some critisms listed, that obviously the study must be flawed? I have to admit, I am more inclined to believe that study that says 'we picked our samples at random and have a 95% CI,' then I am someone who complains that 'They couldn't possibly study that many samples in a day simply because I say so.' But, if you do, then I suppose the numbers don't mean anything.
Well, at least the legislators of some countries are the ones making this decision, rather than one guy overstepping his constitutional boundaries.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Or do you not have equal protection under the law there?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
am far more in favour of a more democratic approach. But I would like to call upon our colleagues, the terrorists to make the first move.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Civilians? Are you sure that none of them were combatants? Part of the game over there is that the insurgents hide in the civilian population.
Also, how many of those were killed by US forces? Or even NATO/Allied forces? And how many were killed by tribal infighting now that there's no strong leader that promised (and went through with) death to anyone that might have even considered acting up?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
"Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay?! Oh no! We've got to get out of here now. Damn!"
"Checkhov, what's the matter with you?"
"Hurry! Hurry!"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Now, would you care to show an analysis which *actually* debunks the Lancet study? I notice that GP gave you that opportunity, but all you came back with is your above "do you really believe that?" non-comment. The only thing I have read comes from ignorant right-wing journalists who either don't understand the first thing about how statistical mathematics works (and I mean really basic things like mean and standard deviation, one writer refers to it as a "dart board") or are relying on their readers ignorance, or they simply revert to typical ad hominem attacks on the researchers.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
But just for shits and giggles: "The Lancet surveys have been supported by many epidemiologists[5] and statisticians, as well as the September 2007 ORB survey." - your quoted source.
This was a peer reviewed paper and personally I believe the real figure *is* within their 95% confidence interval - between 400,000 and 950,000). And I have two degree in maths, thanks for asking.
Got any flaws in the methodology, apart from "obviously nonfactual"? If it's so fucking obvious, please let us all know.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
OMG, that's one of THE NUMBERS!
I'm already nervous about visiting the USA, and the recent decision to make compulsory personal information available prior to departure makes me very nervous indeed.
The UK, which has always treated me like crap at customs, has now lost me as a potential tourist finally.
Oh well, I'll spend my tourist money somewhere else, like China, where they'll only deport me if they don't like me, not chuck me in jail for one and a half months not letting anyone know about it.
Orwell, you must be giggling in that grave of yours.
For those of you not familiar with Interment in Northern Ireland it was introduced in 1971 until 1975 during the troubles and allowed people to be held without charge indefinitely. The North was then and is now part of the United Kingdom and as such the purpose was to jail citizens without any trial or proof. This was introduced by the government of Northern Ireland which was later dissolved by the UK government as they could not handle the situtation. Over 30 years later and now we are back to what is called a power sharing executive with ministers. It is a form of devolution of powers. Interment is still an extremely sensitive and friction generating issue in Ireland even among the vast majority of people who never sided with the campaign of violence like myself.
"Suspects who are arrested under the new law, and who are not charged or released within 48 hours, will be taken to reception areas where they will be held indefinitely without trial."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/9/newsid_4071000/4071849.stm
"During this period a total of 1,981 people were interned: 1,874 were Irish nationalists, while 107 were Ulster loyalists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius
As other people have pointed out, this legislation is not yet law, and it has only a slim chance of passing the Lords in any case. It is probably just an exercise by Gordon Brown to appear strong.
I think I'm just going to block samzenpus' stories in the future. He seems to be basically an anti-Brit troll. If you look at how many wildly misleading headlines he has posted on politics in the UK, this bias is pretty evident.
You didn't cite the BBC nor the Guardian - you simply asserted that "no-one pointed out any specific flaws". I proved you wrong by linking to an article which shows MANY "specific flaws", and suggested you expand the diversity of your reading material. Where you go from here is your call. Good luck!
Disagree with a liberal, get modded flamebait. - Unassimilatible
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES. See also, 9/11.
Or, since al Qaeda isn't a country, the US has no right to defend itself?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The flaws pointed out rest on asserting that the sampling is not representative, and that is impossible to tell without knowing a lot more about the data set.
My bad in that I was referring to the media - we just got the "it's rubbish" line from government and pundits. However, none of the flaws claimed in wikipedia have been substantiated - they are still very much open to question, and plenty of statisticians think it was a robust study.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
I for one welcome our new fascist overlords. (I have to say that in case they are recording this).
that we now have the question to the Ultimate Answer of Life, the Universe and Everything?
:)
How many days can you be held without charge in the UK?
Of course, the answer is 42.
Surely, the must be.
Right?
I actually don't mind the authorities having powers like this: if it's necessary in a time of emergency, then it's necessary. However I also think:
a) anybody detained should be treated like royalty while in detention. I'm talking spa, swimming pool, tennis courts, full dvd, games collection, personal massuer, 3 course a la carte menu for every meal etc.
b) massive compensation for those held unjustly: something like $1 million / day. If there really is a risk the detainee is going to pull off a massive terrorist attack then $42 million is nothing in terms of cost to prevent it. However it certainly should put a brake on abuse of these powers.
But the number will go up, each year more people die.
I've never wanted to go to see the Royal Family, but I'm booking a ticket for this event. Do I need binoculars, or what? Oh the image!
Even if it was one person, it wouldn't be justified. The US needs a lot more than 'bashing', its needs accountability. 42 days is ridiculous, these governments are out of control.
"Baaaaaaaah"
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
42 days! The island of Jersey in the English Channel has just passed a law scrapping the limit for detention without charge! This was done without any vote or notification.
That the British government thought THIS was the question of life, universe and everything, how is this technical news? Why is this on slashdot? Since when is politics news for geeks? It's as mainstream as it gets. How is it that technical posts get rejected and political posts are not?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.