UK: 42 Day detention without charge

[sophia8]

It looks like Kelvin-in-full-muddy-flow won't be standing - Murdoch has apparently said that McKenzie doesn't have his support after all.

(It seems that Rupe's support was behind the sofa all the time. Boom-boom!)

 

[Sunstealer]

So why do we need 42 or indeed 28 days of detention without charge? Turkey has 7.5, Ireland 7, France 6, Russia 5, USA 2, Canada 1, so what is so different about our legal system that we need to detain people for so long compared with other countries? They talk about needing the time to examine computer equipment but surely once you've got the equipment you can hold onto it until it's examined fully. Why do we need to detain the person? Why not put heavy surveillance on them and make sure they don't leave the country?

 

[Darat]

So why do we need 42 or indeed 28 days of detention without charge? Turkey has 7.5, Ireland 7, France 6, Russia 5, USA 2, Canada 1, so what is so different about our legal system that we need to detain people for so long compared with other countries? They talk about needing the time to examine computer equipment but surely once you've got the equipment you can hold onto it until it's examined fully. Why do we need to detain the person? Why not put heavy surveillance on them and make sure they don't leave the country?

Whilst I do not support the extension to 42 days (nor do I support the current 28 days) have you considered your own position? It is very similar and in fact is the same argument that the supporters of 42 days use, can I ask you for how long would you make sure they don't leave the country? 7 days, 28 days, 42 days.... ?

 

[Sunstealer]

Don't we all ready have laws that allow for the surrender of a persons passport until trial? Atleast they are then free to carry out normal business within the UK. I would say that a slight restriction of freedom is better than no freedom at all. I see no reason why this restriction cannot be the same length as what would have been the length of detention without charge.

Imho I don't see how this is supporting the same argument for those that advocate 42 or 420 days detention. The questions are "What is a reasonable time to restrict someone's freedoms before they are charged?" and "What degree of freedom should be removed?"

I see no problem with a weeks detention as I think that this is reasonable. Again I'd also have no problem with 14-28 days being the limit for not leaving the country. This is solely based on what I deem to be reasonable time not only with regards to the individual but also the State. Others will have other ideas. I don't see why our system should be so radically different from other countries hence my previous questions.

 

[albion]

As far as I'm aware (and somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) but back when the limit was 7 days, the police could go to a judge at the end of the week and if they gave a sufficient cause, could get the detention extended week by week.

The ever increasing extension periods seem to me to be nothing more than tough-guy posturing and latent authoritarianism amongst both politicians and senior police.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If you don't have enough evidence to actually charge someone when you arrest them, why the heck are you arresting them?

If you don't even have enough to charge them, isn't that a sign that you don't know enough about what really happened yet?

 

[richardm]

the police could go to a judge at the end of the week and if they gave a sufficient cause, could get the detention extended week by week.

It used to be day by day (I think), and the difference was that they had to go to a judge and justify it each day. Even if my memory is wonky and it week by week they still had to justify it to the courts, which is a great improvement on just a blanket detention with nobody knowing what is going on.

 

[richardm]

Don't we all ready have laws that allow for the surrender of a persons passport until trial?

You can be made to surrender your passport but at that point you will have been charged. Before that, my understanding is that the police can ask you not to travel, but if you decide to travel there's not much they can do about it other than arrest and charge you.

 

[richardm]

... and it appears that, as predicted, Labour are not going to field a candidate.

He's was apparently hoping that if they didn't then he could portray Gordon Brown as "gutless", but I think most people would regard it as quite reasonable, given that nobody else is running either. Is it going to be a bit of an own-goal for Davis?

 

[GreyICE]

The UK's so-called democracy makes me sick. No guns, unlimited cameras, ridiculous detentions, insane police powers, and to top it off, they are getting nothing but increasing crime for their troubles.

Apparently someone thought V for Vendetta was a documentary...

 

[Darat]

The UK's so-called democracy makes me sick. No guns, unlimited cameras, ridiculous detentions, insane police powers, and to top it off, they are getting nothing but increasing crime for their troubles.

Apparently someone thought V for Vendetta was a documentary...

Well the "no guns" is incorrect. "Unlimited cameras" - well that sounds as if you wish to limit the cameras people can have! "Ridiculous detentions" well 42 days is ridiculous and if it is ever used it will be a sad say so have to agree with you on that one. "Insane police powers" - love to know what these are.

Oh and to top it off we've had decreasing crime for quite some time....

By all means criticize the UK (goodness knows us citizens of the UK do it enough!) but perhaps basing it on actual facts would be a good idea?

 

[GreyICE]

Well the "no guns" is incorrect. "Unlimited cameras" - well that sounds as if you wish to limit the cameras people can have! "Ridiculous detentions" well 42 days is ridiculous and if it is ever used it will be a sad say so have to agree with you on that one. "Insane police powers" - love to know what these are.

Right, extremely restricted legal gun ownership (Po-tah-to Po-tay-to), your wonderful surveillance cameras (and you're damn right I want to limit what other people can record with their cameras), and you miss the fact that 28 days is insane? I mean the US makes due with 1/14th that amount of time. Turkey is a little high at 1/4th.

As for the powers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/oct/13/terrorism.immigrationpolicy
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/26/215139.shtml

Oh and to top it off we've had decreasing crime for quite some time....

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page66.asp

I don't believe you. I don't believe you at all. Okay, some of those were trending down, but rape is trending up, homicide is trending flat or slightly up, violent crime is trending up, do we really care that grand theft auto and burglary are trending down.

By all means criticize the UK (goodness knows us citizens of the UK do it enough!) but perhaps basing it on actual facts would be a good idea?

Me thinks you don't quite know as much as you think you know.

 

[Darat]

Right, extremely restricted legal gun ownership (Po-tah-to Po-tay-to),

Which is a direct result of democracy - the restrictive gun controls are what the people of the UK (on the whole) want. How something that is a result of a democratically decided process is an example of non-democracy is beyond me.

your wonderful surveillance cameras (and you're damn right I want to limit what other people can record with their cameras),

Well in this country we have a principle that in public places if you want you can use a camera. Again your example (of a freedom that you want to deny to your own fellow citizens) seems to be going against your stance i.e. you want less freedom for yourself than the citizens of the UK enjoy.

and you miss the fact that 28 days is insane? I mean the US makes due with 1/14th that amount of time. Turkey is a little high at 1/4th.

And the USA makes do with quite a lot longer, in fact years longer. However that is a bit beyond the point, I do not try to defended the 28 days or the extension to 42 days. That is too long but that is the only fact you got right and if you judge the state of a democracy by just one piece of legislation (that the opposition has stated they would repeal after the next general election when if they win) seems rather extreme.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you at all. Okay, some of those were trending down, but rape is trending up, homicide is trending flat or slightly up, violent crime is trending up, do we really care that grand theft auto and burglary are trending down. Me thinks you don't quite know as much as you think you know.

Oh dear I see you are attempting to change your claim. It's only just above this post but let me remind you what you originally claimed:

"they are getting nothing but increasing crime for their troubles"

You did not specify any specific type of crime and now you want to look at just specific crime or crimes? Perhaps you can make your mind up which it is?

As I said by all means criticize the UK but perhaps your criticisms will be better received if you base them on the actual facts rather than what you have been doing so far?

There are plenty things to criticize us on, including some elements of what you have posted about but not on the basis of what you have erroneously claimed are the "facts".

 

[Lothian]

you miss the fact that 28 days is insane? I mean the US makes due with 1/14th that amount of time.

I disagree with the idea that we can hold a suspected terrorist 42 days without charge but it is a hell of a lot better than shipping them off to an Island and holding them indefinitely.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

If you look at crime survey data rather than reported crime (which is a better indicator of actual crime levels as it is not influenced by changes in reporting rates) you will see that violent crime has fallen over 40% since its peak in 1995. Obvously that doesn't include homicide, but if you add in the reported homicide figures I'm pretty sure it is still a downward trend.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page63.asp

 

[GreyICE]

Which is a direct result of democracy - the restrictive gun controls are what the people of the UK (on the whole) want. How something that is a result of a democratically decided process is an example of non-democracy is beyond me.

Democracy? Sounds like mob rule to me. What the people want is what the people get - as long as it's good for them!

It's funny how you're defending taking away people's freedoms as essential to freedom here.

Well in this country we have a principle that in public places if you want you can use a camera. Again your example (of a freedom that you want to deny to your own fellow citizens) seems to be going against your stance i.e. you want less freedom for yourself than the citizens of the UK enjoy.

Yes, and your government too, apparently. Oddly, we have the same principle that in public places we can use cameras, but we don't feel it needful that the government sticks cameras absolutely everywhere. Hey, in your democracy, how many people approve of the cameras? Lets see, CCTV, 85%, National ID, less than 50%, DNA database, 37%. Yes, feeling the democracy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/07/citizens_will_refuse_to_sign_up_to_id_card_register/

And the USA makes do with quite a lot longer, in fact years longer. However that is a bit beyond the point, I do not try to defended the 28 days or the extension to 42 days. That is too long but that is the only fact you got right and if you judge the state of a democracy by just one piece of legislation (that the opposition has stated they would repeal after the next general election when if they win) seems rather extreme.

Yes. One piece.

Oh dear I see you are attempting to change your claim. It's only just above this post but let me remind you what you originally claimed:

"they are getting nothing but increasing crime for their troubles"

You did not specify any specific type of crime and now you want to look at just specific crime or crimes? Perhaps you can make your mind up which it is?

As I said by all means criticize the UK but perhaps your criticisms will be better received if you base them on the actual facts rather than what you have been doing so far?

The incredibly restrictive category I chose to deserve this tirade?

Violent crime.

Yes, I know. I obviously jumped into the statistics until I found some obscure category that was trending upwards. I mean it's not like violent crime is a blanket statistic that covers rape, homicide, assault, and most of the crimes that people consider the worst.

I said a few trended downwards. Home burglary. Grand Theft Auto. Whose cherry picking to get their trends again?

There are plenty things to criticize us on, including some elements of what you have posted about but not on the basis of what you have erroneously claimed are the "facts".

Yes, I'm sorry for implying that violent crime was a general statistic, sensei. I will avoid doing so in the future.

 

[Macoy]

Yes, and it's our democratic right to go waterboarding off Gitmo Beach.

 

[GreyICE]

Which is a direct result of democracy - the restrictive gun controls are what the people of the UK (on the whole) want. How something that is a result of a democratically decided process is an example of non-democracy is beyond me.

Democracy? Sounds like mob rule to me. What the people want is what the people get - as long as it's good for them!

It's funny how you're defending taking away people's freedoms as essential to freedom here.

Well in this country we have a principle that in public places if you want you can use a camera. Again your example (of a freedom that you want to deny to your own fellow citizens) seems to be going against your stance i.e. you want less freedom for yourself than the citizens of the UK enjoy.

Yes, and your government too, apparently. Oddly, we have the same principle that in public places we can use cameras, but we don't feel it needful that the government sticks cameras absolutely everywhere. Hey, in your democracy, how many people approve of the cameras? Lets see, CCTV, 85%, National ID, less than 50%, DNA database, 37%. Yes, feeling the democracy.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/07/citizens_will_refuse_to_sign_up_to_id_card_register/

And the USA makes do with quite a lot longer, in fact years longer. However that is a bit beyond the point, I do not try to defended the 28 days or the extension to 42 days. That is too long but that is the only fact you got right and if you judge the state of a democracy by just one piece of legislation (that the opposition has stated they would repeal after the next general election when if they win) seems rather extreme.

Yes. One piece. Nothing else. Nope. Nosir.

Oh dear I see you are attempting to change your claim. It's only just above this post but let me remind you what you originally claimed:

"they are getting nothing but increasing crime for their troubles"

You did not specify any specific type of crime and now you want to look at just specific crime or crimes? Perhaps you can make your mind up which it is?

As I said by all means criticize the UK but perhaps your criticisms will be better received if you base them on the actual facts rather than what you have been doing so far?

The incredibly restrictive category I chose to deserve this tirade?

Violent crime.

Yes, I know. I obviously jumped into the statistics until I found some obscure category that was trending upwards. I mean it's not like violent crime is a blanket statistic that covers rape, homicide, assault, and most of the crimes that people consider the worst.

I said a few trended downwards. Home burglary. Grand Theft Auto. Whose cherry picking to get their trends again?

But, in the interest of completeness "Despite the fact that, according to official statistics, almost every form of violent crime and sexual offenses are trending distinctly upwards, robbery is trending up or flat, I am pleased to note that burglary, criminal damage, forgery and 'other drug offenses' (besides possession and trafficking, both of which are trending up) have suffered noticeable declines."

There are plenty things to criticize us on, including some elements of what you have posted about but not on the basis of what you have erroneously claimed are the "facts".

Yes, I'm sorry for implying that violent crime was a general statistic, sensei. I will avoid doing so in the future.

 

[Lothian]

Democracy? Sounds like mob rule to me. What the people want is what the people get - as long as it's good for them!

Democracy, mob rule, wishes of the majority, peoples choice. Lots of names, face facts people in the Uk do not want US gun laws just and much as people in the US do not want ours. What is good for people is a different issue. Why do you hate democracy?

It's funny how you're defending taking away people's freedoms as essential to freedom here.

I am afraid it happens quite a lot, even in America if you think about it.

Yes, and your government too, apparently. Oddly, we have the same principle that in public places we can use cameras, but we don't feel it needful that the government sticks cameras absolutely everywhere. Hey, in your democracy, how many people approve of the cameras? Lets see, CCTV, 85%, National ID, less than 50%, DNA database, 37%. Yes, feeling the democracy.

Very few cameras in the UK belong to the UK government. I am not aware of any but I guess there must be some. Why do you deny businesses the freedom to put cameras outside their stores? National ID - Does not exist in the UK, DNA database - Does not exist in the UK. Why do you hate freedom and democracy?

While you are considering that can you look at your stats. If as you say 85% of people approve of Cameras why under democracy should they be denied?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/07/citizens_will_refuse_to_sign_up_to_id_card_register/

Yes. One piece. Nothing else. Nope. Nosir.

The incredibly restrictive category I chose to deserve this tirade?

Violent crime.

Yes, I know. I obviously jumped into the statistics until I found some obscure category that was trending upwards. I mean it's not like violent crime is a blanket statistic that covers rape, homicide, assault, and most of the crimes that people consider the worst.

I said a few trended downwards. Home burglary. Grand Theft Auto. Whose cherry picking to get their trends again?

But, in the interest of completeness "Despite the fact that, according to official statistics, almost every form of violent crime and sexual offenses are trending distinctly upwards, robbery is trending up or flat, I am pleased to note that burglary, criminal damage, forgery and 'other drug offenses' (besides possession and trafficking, both of which are trending up) have suffered noticeable declines."
Yes, I'm sorry for implying that violent crime was a general statistic, sensei. I will avoid doing so in the future.

I think Professor Yaffle has addressed this although you chose to ignore it.

 

[Macoy]

Not to mention our democratic right to be extraordinarily rendered.