UK: 42 Day detention without charge

[richardm]

The lords can't do a thing, really.

They can refuse to pass the bill, but unless there is a big change in government, the bill will just be forced through.

The Lords have virtually no power anymore.

They could try to force the bill through using the Parliament Act, but there are time limits involved. The lords can delay it for up to a year, and then (I think) there needs to be another year before the commons can present the bill to them again. Assuming that I'm right on that second year, we'll be too close to a general election for it to be tried.

 

[SezMe]

But if you don't have any evidence of links to terrorism, why are you arresting the person?

Because there are degrees of "evidence". The Bobbies (gawd, I might be in trouble with that word ) may have weak evidence (suspicions) that Mohammed Doe is a terrorist. But not enough to file charges. So the compromise position is to hold him and seek better evidence. Or find out he is perfectly innocent and let him go.

Again, I am responding to this thread from the wrong side of the pond with virtually no understanding of the issues involved and may well be making an utter @$$ of myself.

 

[richardm]

The Bobbies (gawd, I might be in trouble with that word ) may have weak evidence (suspicions) that Mohammed Doe is a terrorist. But not enough to file charges. So the compromise position is to hold him and seek better evidence. Or find out he is perfectly innocent and let him go.

Well, I think that is exactly what the supposed purpose is.

But many people think that locking people up for long periods while you try to find something you can charge them with is a Bad Thing, and that you should have more reason than a tingling spidey sense to act on.

This is a matter of principle, but also stands against the background of a number of rather high profile cases (e.g.) where the police have lost public confidence by being certain that people committed a particular crime but having no evidence to support it, and so invented some evidence to ensure conviction. Consequently, confidence in police suspicions is not (or should not be) high enough to allow lengthy detention of citizens based purely on that suspicion. If they have more than suspicion, i.e. some actual evidence, then fair enough.

There is a caveat to that, which is that last time I checked wiretap evidence is not admissible in court. So it is perhaps arguable that an intercepted phone call could give a very good indication that an attack is imminent, causing the immediate rounding up of the people involved in the call. But it might take time to get some non-wiretap evidence to make it a charging matter.

Of course the solution here is not to lock people up for weeks, but to make wiretap evidence admissible. God knows why it isn't already (I believe there are moves afoot to make it so).

Although the posters from the UK who've responded to this thread are universally against this change, in the interests of balance I should point out that according to the radio this morning most of the opinion polls taken by the press have indicated that a majority of people support the change. And not all of them on the grounds that it's only brown people who will be affected - I've seen quotes along the lines of "If we lock up a few hoodies [i.e. young people hanging around in groups] that will bring crime down too"

 

[Mashuna]

Given that apparently if you are held under the legislation but not subsequently charged you will receive an ex-gratia payment I am wondering if 6 weeks food and lodging and a nice cash sum at the end of it may be worth some investigation.... lets see Google search for "bulk supplies of hydrogen peroxide and ....."

Ah, the old 'Get into jail free' card, eh?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

They could try to force the bill through using the Parliament Act, but there are time limits involved. The lords can delay it for up to a year, and then (I think) there needs to be another year before the commons can present the bill to them again. Assuming that I'm right on that second year, we'll be too close to a general election for it to be tried.

True, but I feel that they will still try the Parliament act. Unless there is a shift at the top that is.

 

[richardm]

Unless there is a shift at the top that is.

We've already got one of those.

 

[richardm]

Oh, I'm sorry, you said "shift".

 

[Sunstealer]

There is also another little reported measure that this insidious bill introduces.

The bill would allow the home secretary to let an inquest take place without a jury if it would involve "the consideration of material that should not be made public in the interests of national security, in the interest of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or otherwise in the public interest."

Although this proposal has attracted less publicity than the 42-days policy, it is unpopular with some Labour MPs who fear that it could be used during inquests into the deaths of servicemen killed in action to prevent the disclosure of material that could be embarrassing to the US.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/10/terrorism.uksecurity2

Alas, not tight enough. The Government got its way. So unless the Lords intervenes, "secret" inquests on killings involving the state may be held behind closed doors, by a coroner sitting without a jury. Families may be excluded.

The death of a soldier in Afghanistan or cases such as that of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes could qualify. In the case of the dead, it will no longer be axiomatic that justice is seen to be done.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/12/do1201.xml

There has been government criticism of the (Oxfordshire?) coroner who deals with servicemen's deaths and his criticisms of the British Government with regard to equipment and air safety. This bill will allow the Home Secretary to order such enquiries to be conducted in secret. So any death at the hands of the state could be ordered to be conducted in secret. Coroners courts are a bulwark against the State because they are free and independent. Not any more.

 

[Liszt]

Oh, I'm sorry, you said "shift".

lol

it's funny because it's true.

The BBC reported that 2/3 of the public wanted 42 days. Where did they get these numbers from?

And don't even think about protesting Bush on Sunday - protesting has been banned.

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=4827&blz=1

"you're free to do as we tell you"

 

[Acleron]

Although the posters from the UK who've responded to this thread are universally against this change, in the interests of balance I should point out that according to the radio this morning most of the opinion polls taken by the press have indicated that a majority of people support the change. And not all of them on the grounds that it's only brown people who will be affected - I've seen quotes along the lines of "If we lock up a few hoodies [i.e. young people hanging around in groups] that will bring crime down too"

Politicians always feel that being strong on crime is a vote catcher and unfortunately it is.

The problem with this legislation is that it is less to do with preventing and detecting terrorism and more to do with propping up Gordon Brown.

 

[richardm]

Politicians always feel that being strong on crime is a vote catcher and unfortunately it is.

An interesting development: David Davis has resigned in order to force a by-election which he will fight on the basis of opposing the new law. Could be amusing if he didn't get re-elected because his constituents quite like the idea of banging muslims in jail Well, I can dream, can't I?

 

[Darat]

An interesting development: David Davis has resigned in order to force a by-election which he will fight on the basis of opposing the new law. Could be amusing if he didn't get re-elected because his constituents quite like the idea of banging muslims in jail Well, I can dream, can't I?

Er.. right... er no not right what on earth is he doing? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

 

[albion]

Er.. right... er no not right what on earth is he doing? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

Well, there seem to be a couple of reasons. First by making the by-election a referendum on the 42 days it will weaken the legitimacy of the vote and cause problems for Brown.

Second, it holds Cameron's feet to the fire. Cameron was originally in favour of the move under the impression it carried public support and had to be convinced to take a principled stand by Davis. By showing that he is prepared to take drastic measures it makes clear to the Tory leadership that they will need to stick to their guns or face rebellion.

Recriminations over the Leadership campaign are a possibility, though highly unlikely.

Seeing that Davis has agreed with Clegg that the Lib Dem's will not field a candidate it is a worthwhile risk to take as Davis has a 16,000 majority over the Labour candidate.

General Election 2005: Haltemprice and Howden:

Tory (Davis) 22,792
Liberal Democrat 17,676
Labour 6,104

 

[Uzzy]

Wow. Go David Davis, the last honest man in Parliament, and soon to be returned to Parliament.

It's an astonishing move, really is.

 

[volatile]

All they need to do is allow post-charge questioning, and for wiretap evidence to be admissible. No need for arbitrarily locking up people for 6 weeks with no evidence.

 

[Uzzy]

All they need to do is allow post-charge questioning, and for wiretap evidence to be admissible. No need for arbitrarily locking up people for 6 weeks with no evidence.

Which would be a reasoned and reasonable response to the situation. That wouldn't do Brown though. He needs to be seen as 'tough' and 'taking a stand' on a difficult issue.

Now, thanks the the Labour Drones who gleefully signed Faustian pacts with Brown to sell out civil liberties down the river, he got his wish. Spineless cowards, all 314 of them.

 

[volatile]

According to some of the radio debate yesterday, it's not even clear that there is a 2/3rd majority public support for this. If the question is phrased "Do you think we should lock up suspected terrorists..." then support is strong, but if it is phrased along the lines of "Do you think we should lock up those suspected of terrorist activities even though there is not sufficient evidence to charge them" the support wanes significantly. I'm not sure of the veracity of this, but it sounds plausible.

I think when people realise that this law allows the government to lock people away for two months when there is not even enough evidence against them to justify actually charging them with anything at all. Considering we have a large number of crimes that actually attract sentences of less than 42 days, this whole proposition is scary.

It needs to be stripped of the spin and presented as what it is - the state locking up people on hearsay and suspicion.

 

[geni]

Wow. Go David Davis, the last honest man in Parliament, and soon to be returned to Parliament.

It's an astonishing move, really is.

Not really. His seat is pretty safe. The election will likely be while the students in his consistency will be at home (his consistency contains a couple of large student halls) which means that it will be safer than normal.

After that the lib dems won't be fielding a candidate thus he's certian to hold his seat.

So PR stunt. A smart PR stunt but a PR stunt no more no less.

It's not even as if the guy has great civil liberties creditials (against the repeal of Section 28 pro death pentalty). He is a conservative shadow home secretary what do you expect?

 

[Acleron]

An interesting development: David Davis has resigned in order to force a by-election which he will fight on the basis of opposing the new law. Could be amusing if he didn't get re-elected because his constituents quite like the idea of banging muslims in jail Well, I can dream, can't I?

Gosh, a politician with principles, a rare bird indeed. Nick Clegg must also be congratulated for not fielding a candidate. Although, it must be said that he is almost bound to keep his seat. The only danger is that his lead over labour is reduced.

Gordon Brown seems to have descended pretty low to get his vote.

Downing Street insisted there had been no backstairs deal with the DUP. But rumours swept Westminster that the party which normally votes with the Tories had been bought off by promises of £100m of infrastucture projects in Northern Ireland and that the province would keep revenues from water charges rather than hand them over to the Treasury

 

[Uzzy]

Not really. His seat is pretty safe. The election will likely be while the students in his consistency will be at home (his consistency contains a couple of large student halls) which means that it will be safer than normal.

After that the lib dems won't be fielding a candidate thus he's certian to hold his seat.

So PR stunt. A smart PR stunt but a PR stunt no more no less.

It's not even as if the guy has great civil liberties creditials (against the repeal of Section 28 pro death pentalty). He is a conservative shadow home secretary what do you expect?

Labour are entirely free to put up a candidate and oppose David Davies, who's actually taken a stand over a critically important issue. As such, he's to be applauded.

As for your silly slur against the Conservatives, it seems to me that they are the ones defending civil liberties, like Habeas Corpus, while the Labour Home Secretary is working to destroy them. Just one more reason this disgraceful government needs removing as quick as possible.

Thanks to Labour policy, you can be locked up for 28 days without charge and without the right to challenge your detention. If this bill passes the Lords, that figure will go up to 42 days. Can you imagine being locked up for that length of time without charge?