Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Can Now Hold People Without Charge For 42 Days

Posted by samzenpus on from the the-terrorists-have-won dept.

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."

4 of 650 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... by benjj · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yes! You know who else was part of that fine tradition? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.

    I know this may sound like a demonstration of Godwin's Law, but what the hell are you talking about? Why don't we just put the Queen back in charge if that's what you want?

  2. Oh please, such a red herring by unassimilatible · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    So I guess saying "Guantanamo Bay" now constitutes an argument. If you cannot understand the difference between war - where every freaking country in the history of time (including the UK) has held prisoners until said war is over - and criminal law, where people go through some sort of legal process, then I can't help you. What country, ever, has released prisoners before the war was over? The reason for this is so they can't shoot at you again! And yes, there are guys in Guantanamo who have been caught two and three times, shooting at Americans yet again. And the mofos in there eat better than I do. Should we release them so they can be tortured and killed in their home countries? Prisoners of war do not get civilian trials. They never have, and terrorists flouting all rules of Geneva should not be treated better simply because you don't like Bush or his war.

    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
  3. Re:it's without CHARGE, not without trial by Quadraginta · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Reckon you'd come out after six weeks the same person?

    Fuck yeah. Why not? You talk like people never survived in the gulag for 10 years, or came through the camps, or coped with a hideous car accident that left them quadriplegic, or had the wife and kids smashed to a pulp before their very eyes when the Winnebago rolled over, or is living with Stage IV cancer with metasteses to the brain and liver.

    I don't doubt that it would suck spending 6 weeks having assholes yell at you night and day, maybe giving you a slap upside the head, some light beating about, the kind of stuff that won't leave bruises that can't be explained plausibly to the magistrate (He's very clumsy, m'lud. Always falling into things.). I'd do quite a lot to avoid it. But would the prospect make me shit my pants and cry for mommy? No. I dunno about you but I haven't reached middle age without having to learn how to deal with various amounts of physical and mental pain that approach these levels, and some of it goes on for years (or forever), not a mere 6 weeks.

    Anyway, its hardly the point, is it? Whatever they can do to you inside the 42-day limit, they can jolly well do to you inside the existing 28-day limit -- or for that matter, if they only have you in their slimy claws for a day.

    Maybe you'd just like to not have them have the ability to get ahold of you at all? Well then, take back your security into your own hands. Stop asking government to protect you and yours. Liberalize your weapons laws and arm yourself. Change the rules of the game -- enact 'stand your ground' laws and the right to use deadly force to defend -- so that you can take care of shitheads who break into your flat, or house, or who try to mess with your person while you're in public, and potential shitheads know this and fear you the pissed-off righteous citizen more than they fear the police. Then you can start circumscribing the powers of the police, put them more at arm's length.

    The fact of the matter is, this state of affairs hasn't come about because Great Britain is under some kind of alien occupation. Your fellow citizens voted in this government, and it is doing their bidding. If you (plural) don't want the government prying into your life and exerting all that criminal prosecution power to keep the peace, you need to do it yourself.

  4. Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... by pbhj · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Got a decent reference? Seriously, that link is to the 'Daily Mail', the sensationalism in that paper is renowned. Even its founder (Lord Northcliffe) said its winning formula is to give readers: 'a daily hate'. This is the same paper that pays foreign people to break the law, so they can report about how East Europeans are 'destroying Britain'. I'm kinda inclined to believe this one, from the linked article (I know I'm not _supposed_ to read it ...):

    It was revealed he has been awarded £252,500 compensation for his lost years - but minus the estimated cost of his food and accommodation while behind bars. So basically some fudge was made, he was really awarded £240,000 compensation; they stuck on £12.5k and then took it off as B&B. It seems a strange and offensive way to do things but I can't really see it as anything more than a financial fudge.

    However, if I were that man I'd probably be spending half that £240k to get the £12.5k back!

    This report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_6702000/6702519.stm) from the BBC seems a bit more level headed:

    The Ministry of Justice said in a statement: "It's wrong to refer to the deductions as 'bed and breakfast' as they are made in respect of the costs an individual would have had to pay out of their net income on things such as a mortgage or rent.

    "The purpose of the compensation is to put an individual back into the financial position they would have been in but for the miscarriage of justice, but not to a better position."