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."

7 of 650 comments (clear)

  1. Jumping the gun a bit.... by Cambo67 · · Score: 5, Informative

    ....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.

    1. Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... by jeevesbond · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to disagree with you, just wanted to point out that this law is not popular in Britain.

      IIRC the Lords can bounce this back (with good reason) to the Commons, by the time this goes back and forth a couple of times the media will be in a good frenzy about it. The fact that Gordon Brown had to do a deal with another political party to get this through is not going down well:

      But there was uproar in the Commons as the result of the key vote on 42 days was announced after five hours of tense debate - with Tory and Lib Dem MPs shouting "You've been bought" at the DUP benches.

      They claim the DUP was offered a string of inducements - including extra financial help for Northern Ireland - to guarantee its support.

      I for one am hoping this gets pushed back by the Lords.

      --- Back to the article ---

      this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs.

      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 going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
    2. Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Informative

      Charles I - executed 1649.
      Oliver Cromwell - died in 1658, his regime was overthrown in 1660.
      George III - ruled with a majority in the elected Parliament.

      Seems the system worked during all those cases.

    3. Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative
      The difference was that the hunting ban didn't see anywhere near the same kind of opposition in the Commons. In this case Gordon Brown had to rely on the DUP, and the only other non-Labour MP to vote for it was Ann Widdecombe, while 36 Labour MP's also voted against it.

      If there's enough of an uproar about it, it won't take much before some of those voting for it starts worrying about their re-election and vote against it if it's sent back to the Commons.

    4. Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... by Dark$ide · · Score: 5, Informative

      The bill can't become law before the House of Lords votes on it. It's then sent back to the Commons to change the stuff that the Lords don't like. Only after the bill has passed both houses does it then go to Her Majesty The Queen for Royal Ascent. If the Lords keep rejecting it then the Commons can invoke the Parliament Act to force it through.

      --

      Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.

    5. Re:Jumping the gun a bit.... by speculatrix · · Score: 5, Informative

      the fox hunting bill was a massive smokescreen for the Civil Contingencies Bill, now an Act, which took away some fundamental rights. Even now, many people have not heard of it despite it giving the government the right to do anything they damn well please merely by asserting there is some kind of emergency!

  2. Re:The Question by phagstrom · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the one or two outsiders who reads this, it's ROT-13 and reads:

    In Soviet Russia, base 13 encrypts jokes.

    Oh wait...am I now in violation with the DMCA?