Locking People Up For 42 Days Without Charge - Classic or Dud

it's quite hard for the rebels and tories to argue there's a difference in principle between 28 and 42.

TWO WEEKS

If you're innocent you have nothing to fear from this.

not arguing that there is a diff between 28 and 42 really does lead to a slippery slope of possibly indefinite detention. seems to be going that way anyway though.

Some of these plots are really really complicated. Like that plot where that dude set himself on fire and drove a Suv into a wall.

Or where that Brazilian dude plotted to shoot himself in the head 7 times.

Anyway snark aside I think we can trust the police not to fuck up here and only lock away indefinitely people who are really really guilty.

waht is this bullshit rock music bbc "news" video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7447212.stm

Dear BBC, I don't really give a shit what the Great British Public thinks about today's current affairs, most of them are fucking morons. kthx

"In 2003 that was doubled to 14 days - and the Terrorism Act 2006 took it to 28 days. That four-week limit came after then Prime Minister Tony Blair was defeated in a bid to introduce 90 days."

90 days! don't remember that.

Blair just did that for a bet.

isn't Foxy Knoxy still being detained without charge in Italy? let's not lose sight of the smaller picture people.

I can think of loads of people I would like to see locked away for 42 days without charge but sadly Noel Fielding and Andrew Gilligan are probably not very high on MI5's list of potential terrorists. Actually maybe Gilligan.

Don't see why we can't return to the time-honoured method of letting the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad forge a confession and then let them out 20 years later, apologise and do a movie about them.

90 days was pretty close to getting in at the time IIRC?

In the Name of the Fatwah, starring Daniel Day al-Lewis who has recently discovered his Iraqi roots.

Really if you don't want to be locked up without charge for 3 months you shouldn't be hanging around with Muslims.

http://www.freewebs.com/shamik-das/Pictures/George-Galloway_Saddam-Hussein.jpg

That BBC video is hilarious and rong.

Dear BBC, I don't really give a shit what the Great British Public thinks about today's current affairs, most of them are fucking morons. kthx

-- Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 09:02 (2 hours ago) Link

And now we go over to BBC HYS for some rational, well thought our criticsm of this important legislation...

Terrorists don't bother me.
What does bother me is the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who have presided in systematically running Britain down to the level of a third world country. Our reputation is in tatters, our economy is at a low all time level, we are no longer a key player in world economics, our country has been allowed to stagnate and droves of migrants allowed in to enjoy what we have provided for our kind causing stress to the NHS.
The worst government Britain has ever had.

Sir Herbert Scroggins, Edgeley, Stockport, United Kingdom

That's not the Sir Herbert Scroggins I know is it?

our kind
our kind
our kind
our kind
our kind

"we are no longer a key player in world economics"

Surely this is wrong? I mean it might be once the City collapses over the next couple of years but not right now. I'm assuming this is shorthand for "we don't have an empire any more".

And England won the World Cup in 1966

It's always shorthand for lack of empire. Sigh.

60 years of hurt

xxxp
Well, one hates to point to any particular crazyness but we're not a third world country either.

It's the only country we run now so I suppose that makes it third world by default.

I read a HYS comment recently which said that Britain was no longer recognisable as the peaceful country it was in the 40s. I mean you cannot argue against that kind of logic.

Gibraltar, sir! *stands up and salutes, manly tear trickles down cheek*

And The Falklands, god bless 'em..

Anyway, 42 days detention, totally dud, but not as bad as internment, as favoured by the tories.

Maybe they'll just drive them mad in custody so they can detain them under mental health legislation, thus having the potential to keep 'em inside for years.

(being as excessive, martyr-aspiring religiosity plus delusions of grandeur necessary to become terror-happy would in any other context be UH OH SCHIZOPHRENIC)

David Davies speaks HYS language.

The shadow Home Secretary said: "What characterises Britain in the world at large is liberty under the law. We have for centuries been the freest country in the world, and now we are actually the other way round."

So, we're now the least free country in the world?

Anyway, you ask yourselves, how will the new conservative gov deal with those pesky terror suspects? I'm glad you asked.

the Conservatives will focus on using intercepted and bugging evidence in court, plea bargaining and allowing suspects to be interviewed after being charged, as well as a ``much harder'' approach on dealing with people who radicalise young men and women.

a ``much harder'' approach
http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A5619/56199/300_56199.jpg

Come and Have a Go If You Think You're Radicalized Enough

"We have for centuries been the freest country in the world, and now we are actually the other way round."

The cuntiest freery... no.

fuck off DUP cunts! thanks a lot!

How convenient for the dossier on Al Quaida's activities to be found on a train just before the vote on 42 days.

Even the Tories weren't that cynical.

This country :(

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

ok own up now

david davis resigns

Lib Dems to not run against Davis in this by-election, apparently.

lol worst fucking Labour government in history

zomg at this!

wtf Davis? Must surely be some sex scandal. Or money?

No, he's going to restand in the by-election

i always had DD down as a nazi, but y'know, he is kind of on-point with most of this stuff.

^^^ asking for trouble after borisgate but ech, go read your constitutional history, bitches.

He's resigning his seat and restanding it, to serve as a kind of referendum on 42 days

xp

Oh right, I didn't read that very carefully. But nonetheless, wtf!

He's resigning his seat and restanding it, to serve as a kind of referendum on 42 days

Stupid cunt. Why?

Any left-of-centre party is unelectable in England

Any left-of-centre party is unelectable in England

unless there's a war involving conscription and/or fighting on the home front.

They've not always been unelectable but they are now.

do we know if UKIP are putting up a candidate? could well seeing them attract a pretty significant portion of the vote- this is the East Riding after all.

Time for the BNP to put their best jackboot forward

The Metro said he'll be up against BNP & UKIP. I know, I know, I should stop reading the Metro.

They said you were poor

Well, nearly poor. I'm about £30 a week over the poverty line, according to them. Which is obviously not true, which was why I brought it up in the first place.

I just wish they'd just get on with it and turn England into a police state already. I mean like, who are they kidding?

That's a joke right?

Its a joke in that its whats happening but no I vehemently oppose becoming a police state.

You seriously think that England is becoming a police state?

verona is a menk, but if you think that the police being able to lock people up for a month (never mind 42 days) without bringing a charge is ok, if you're fine seeing jury trials cut down, if you like the idea of ID cards and CCTV, then yeah i could see why you don't think we're headed in a grim direction.

Add in changes to inquests to prevent investigation as long as there's a self-proclaimed 'national security' issue, add in immigration courts taking place in camera with rules of evidence changed to favour the state, add in police investigatory powers of ISPs, add in police powers over bank accounts, add in the ability of the police to stop anyone from going about their business for a demo (see the start of 'Taking Liberties' for hilarious footage of this), add in dna sampling of everyone arrested for anything (which the police themselves want to be exempt from). Still, nothing to fear eh?

Being stopped and searched sucks, everyone (ok not everyone) walking by stares at you like you've done something wrong (I've done that myself). Imagine if that happened to you multiple times for no reason. Of course we're not a police state in the absolute sense, and I concede suggesting we are one is sensationalist. I don't think because it's been worse in the 70s and 80s it's OK now.

So, you're all living in fear then? I know I'm not and really I doubt you are either. I fear a stupid fuck with a knive much more than this supposed police state.

And I am happy with CCTV tbh, as are many people I've spoken too on estates where 'civil liberites' activists wouldn't be seen dead (and not only because the people living there feel safer but they also feel that CCTV is watching the police - if you want to talk about police states let's talk about the 'ownership' of the police of these estates where they pretty think they can do anything they like and have done for 30 years).

I was much more afraid of the police in the 80s when I was trying to picket mines and got prevented from driving from Leicestershire into Nottinghamshire. Or when the police sided with a nutter with a shotgun threatening us on a demo at Molesworth. People at demos have always always always been hassled as anyone who has ever been on one will know.

Most of the Boylers point deserve more of a reply than I can be bothered with here, but overall I am pretty happy with police accountability these days, which is much more than in the past (ask a police officer) and I've already said that I think the DNA database is a good thing (for the proving of innocence as much as guilt, for instance.

There are lots of things I don't think are 'ok' but I just don't think it's that bad either.

Sorry Ned you're just sounding like an apologist here, if it was a Tory government doing it you'd be up in arms. Just because you're not the demonised one any more doesn't it's not that bad, try asking young Asians or Muslims if they're less afraid of the police than they were.

"I was much more afraid of the police when I was picketing mines in the 80s than now I'm a respectable middle-aged guy with young kids" is not a particularly good way of quantifying or qualifying anything.

This issue has been the camelbackbreaker for me. Never voting Labour again. Appalled.

How can CCTV be watching the police if the police are in charge of CCTV?

the police have excellent internal discipline, as proven by the menezes case.

"I was much more afraid of the police when I was picketing mines in the 80s than now I'm a respectable middle-aged guy with young kids"

This is dead on. It also seems to be true that when civil liberties are removed it is not pushed on us, we request it - to protect us from the hoodie, the terrorist, the hooligan, our neighbors we don't know.

Create the idea of an enemy out of our neighbours and introduce methods to protect us from them. We see it in history yet seem reluctant to see it in our present. Demonize the working class and have us turn to the authorities to protect us from ourselves - without considering who might be doing the protecting and in whos interests

it's not really anything to do with that -- why so you need to deny knife crime or terrorism in order to defend the jury system? -- and it's not even about 'civil liberties', which are a pretty recent idea to do with things that were hitherto denied. this is about overweaning state power and the erosion of basic constitutional protections from it.

if you unpack "Demonize the working class and have us turn to the authorities to protect us from ourselves - without considering who might be doing the protecting and in whos interests" i guess that might help, but you seem to be saying that people's concerns about crime are a conspiracy to blind people to the real villains. i would have thought that a lot of people in favour of punitive treatment of criminals were also working class. but the class of the person making the argument ought to be irrelevant to constitutional arguments really...

Knife crime and terrorism are certainly prevalent and i see no need to deny them - my uncle was stabbed in Liverpool when he was young. not sure how much more violent the streets are than periods in the past.

Ok you can chuck civil liberties in bin and replace with the fact we request overweaning state power where safety is concerned ("whatever the police need, they face a tough job" etc)

Peoples concerns about crime are not a conspiracy. They are as real and valid as they ever were. And of course it is true that many in favour of punitive criminals are working class! Thats kind of the point. It is the demonization of ourselves. The idea we have to fear out neighbours is an insidious one. It is not that it is too blind us to the real villains, it is that it is that we see villains in everyone - the idea that the hoodies and terrorists are legion

It is irrelevant the class of the person making the argument, this is correct. The idea is that we are to fear the people we live with and travel alongside - and approve of greater state power and surveillence to protect us from them, yet we do not consider that we are also those people. This is how this power is extended, it is asked for

(i shd probably have said, remote policing/cctv/blah are pretty rubbish ways of cutting crime and alienating and basically criminalizing everyone by putting them under surveillance is probably more on the 'problem' than 'solution' side.)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/janetdaley/june08/david_davis_calamity.htm

^^ uhhh this is fucked up. it's like the conservatives really have become new labour c. 1995: the "libertarians" who care about locking people up for six weeks without charge are the crank minority, and because opinion poll respondents -- who i'm sure have all given the matter great thought -- don't really give a shit, the tory party has to go with them. this isn't conservatism or any other ism really, just naked power politics.

I'm not quite sure why knife crime is being folded into this debate really, it's a genuine concern that's maybe being exploited on both sides of the argument but I don't imagine many people imagine hoodies will be detained for 42 days without charge. Most people do not have much to fear from this law but then again most people in this country are not black, Asian or Muslim. Considering what's been happening to a friend of a friend lately, and how that started in the first place, I do not have the slightest bit of faith that this law and others will not be abused.

Anyway, as far as CCTV goes, it is not particularly effective for deterring crime, catching criminals or making people feel safer. What makes people safer regardless of the area is material, concrete improvements to their environment. Last week I came out of Shadwell DLR station at night for the first time in three or four years. I remember it being isolated, dark and very intimidating, now its very brightly illuminated and feels populated and much safer. That's where taxpayers money should be (and indeed is) going, and makes people feel a lot safer than putting a camera up and hoping it will magically deter muggers.

Just because you're not the demonised one any more doesn't it's not that bad, try asking young Asians or Muslims if they're less afraid of the police than they were.

Come on, this is ridiculous. They are just as victimised as they were. Maybe less actually. Show me some figures that prove me wrong. Well don't bother because back in the 70s and 80s there was no police accountability and they could do pretty much what they like. If you ask young asians now of course they'll say it worse, they won't remember the crap their parents had to out up with.

How can CCTV be watching the police if the police are in charge of CCTV?

CCTV is monitered by a whole range of people, not just the police. Most CCTV is probably manged by council employees or shopping centre people. It is crap but as I have said before you cannot use a civil liberties arguement against it without arguing for the banning of photography ion public places.

This whole argument is kind of crazy because I'm against 42 days as well (lots of labour supporters are). I'm against ID cards for that matter (ditto).

BUT I'm going to vote Labour in the next election because if you don't you'll get a tory government. Not a lib-dem, civil liberty friendly one, not a Green Party one, a tory one. And if you think that's OK then fine but I don't.

And I know that I sound like a boring old fart but really you don't have to rub it in with the 'respectacle' and 'middle-aged' ffs...

matt i have to disagree on one point - CCTV is very very good at identifying criminals after they've done whatever it is that they've done, if they've actually been trained on the spot where the crime went down

ned you are ignoring the USE that photography is put to - there's a difference between snapshots and a total system of 24/7 government-controlled surveillance

I am not ignoring it - please tell me how you will make a law which will get rid of CCTV and still allow photography? Most CCTV is on private property anyway. Are you against that too?

if you take a photo in a public place for professional use you have to get release forms, i think. and i think you have the right to request cctv footage of yourself?

if you take a photo in a public place [which contains identifiable people]

BUT I'm going to vote Labour in the next election because if you don't you'll get a tory government. Not a lib-dem, civil liberty friendly one, not a Green Party one, a tory one. And if you think that's OK then fine but I don't.

*sigh*

I'm not living in fear, I'm living in hope for a revolution and less Britney Spears video and wtf? about calling me a fucking menk?!
England is becoming a police state, we have more surveillance than most 'devolped' countries,ID cards, racist 'illeagal immigrant laws' and the kind of facist, racist stupid idiocracy that the pigs sorry 'police' are allowed to get away and the hypocrisy behind that...self government people, self government. I'll leave you with this...
"the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation"

Vote Labour and you're voting for more of the same fucking ruling class, bourgeois, indifferent, exploitative bullshit. In fact, vote at all and thats all you'll get. Don't vote!

Results 1 - 10 of about 616,000 for white guy with dreadlocks. (0.27 seconds)

I'm a black woman.

http://www.thatkidinthecorner.com/mt/images/verona.jpg

I'm tired of this hateration, I'd just like some fucking sleep.

I really wish I was more coherent.

The trouble with posting drunk is that the most diligent reader is no more sober. Or something

those candidates in full:

Grace Astley - Independent
David Bishop - Church of the Militant Elvis Party
Ronnie Carroll - Make Politicians History
Mad Cow-GIRL - The Official Monster Raving Loony Party
David Craig - Independent
Herbert Crossman - Independent
Tess Culnane - National Front Britain for the British
Thomas Darwood - Independent
David Davis - Conservative
Tony Farnon - Independent
Eamonn "Fitzy" Fitzpatrick - Independent
Christopher Foren - Independent
Gemma Garrett - Miss Great Britain Party
George Hargreaves - Christian Party
Hamish Howitt - Freedom 4 Choice
David Icke - No party listed
John NICHOLSOn - Independent
Shan Oakes - Green Party
David Pinder - The New Party
Joanne Robinson - English Democrats: Putting England First
Jill Saward - Independent
Norman Scarth - Independent
Walter Sweeney - Independent
Christopher Talbot - Socialist Equality Party
John Upex - Independent
Greg Wood - Independent

interesting that david craig is standing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Craig_%28author%29

TS: National Front Britain for the British vs. English Democrats: Putting England First

... it's a toughie

i guess the lbzc choice has to be the pneumatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemma_Garrett

That's the pneumatic angle covered, and there are plenty of Nuts to chose from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/29/do2903.xml

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/LeboviciAB84/HarryHillsmallerrordiffusion.gif

Comments

I may not necessarily agree with some of Tony Benn's politics coming from the left as he does, but I will say one thing for him. He has always come across as a patriot and a true champion and supporter of Britain and its core values. Which is more than can be said of the Labour Party in general and the present crop of treasonous scum that occupy the cabinet.
Posted by TonyG on June 29, 2008 1:43 PM

Madness.

does nick clegg come off as anything more than a fool kid who went thru sum fasting, pain, etc but doesnt construct and analysis with meaning in dialogue? he seems like a basic liberal, someone who just makes bad jokes and laughs while everyone else thinks his semiconscious rambling are dumb. this is all just supposition from media i don't watch/read

― Free Peace Sweet!, Friday, June 13, 2008 2:52 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark

this guy spitting str8 fiya