NationStates Jolt Archive

Brown succeeds once again in convincing him MPs that losing 800 years' worth of legislation regarding habeas corpus is a worthy trade for a few poll points. Eugh.

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7449268.stm

Your views?

Bad.

Another reason to have moved.

We do not need to make this change. Hopefully it will get kicked back by the Lords. Sad that it seems two thirds of the population of the UK think this is a good idea.

We do not need to make this change. Hopefully it will get kicked back by the Lords. Sad that it seems two thirds of the population of the UK think this is a good idea.

Good man!

Two thirds of the population have their heads so far up their own arses they can't even see daylight let alone reality.

Brown succeeds once again in convincing him MPs that losing 800 years' worth of legislation regarding habeas corpus is a worthy trade for a few poll points. Eugh.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7449268.stm

Your views?

Bah, with our security certificates, we can hold our terror suspects indefinately and a review of their detention is actually NOT ALLOWED for at least 100 days. You bleeding-heart liberal Brits.

This was won through bribery. The DUP sold out the British public for financial gain. I hope they're happy with their 30 pieces of silver, because I'm going to fucking hang them in their Potter's field of the NI General Assembly.

This is Sig-worthy!

Your views?
This was won through bribery. The DUP sold out the British public for financial gain. I hope they're happy with their 30 pieces of silver, because I'm going to fucking hang them in their Potter's field of the NI General Assembly.

This was won through bribery. The DUP sold out the British public for financial gain. I hope they're happy with their 30 pieces of silver, because I'm going to fucking hang them in their Potter's field of the NI General Assembly.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/thumbup.gif

Very well said.

how long can the police hold you without charges before this passes?

I've got to go 'drop the browns off at the super bowl' if you know what I mean

how long can the police hold you without charges before this passes?
28 days if you're brown enough, which is in itself a breech of our rights way back to the Magna Carta. Pretty disgraceful, really. Thank you New Labour and the extremely thick public for this one...

Brown succeeds once again in convincing him MPs that losing 800 years' worth of legislation regarding habeas corpus is a worthy trade for a few poll points. Eugh.

Your views?
Euch indeed.

Help us House of Lords, you're our only hope.

how long can the police hold you without charges before this passes?
Two weeks, I think. Though there's differences for 'terrorist' arrests.

EDIT> Yootopia's got it right. The Magna Carta got screwed.

*orders rebellion pack*

Oh look, a 20% discount for first time buyers.

*buys 2 rebellion packs*

Does anyone else have an image of the Lords ransacking the Commons and declaring Brown a terrorist? That would be quite funny.

I'm currently hoping it gets sent back by the Lords (and there are issues regarding it's legality re: the ECHR). Words cannot begin to express my displeasure (well they could but not on a forum where minors could see them)

Although I am most angry not at Brown or New Labour, I expect this of them, but at the DUP and Labour rebels who sold out their morals for political gain. Shame. On. You!

Aye, the DUP can kiss my arse regarding this one.

I'm currently hoping it gets sent back by the Lords (and there are issues regarding it's legality re: the ECHR).
Yup (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/11/terrorism.civilliberties3).

Several organisations have already announced they will challenge the proposed law in the courts, including the government's own legal watchdog.

Some interesting information from the Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7449268.stm):

Lib Dem and Tories voted against the government
36 Labour MPs voted against the government
Seven ex-ministers defied the Labour whip: Frank Dobson, Mark Fisher, Kate Hoey, Glenda Jackson, Peter Kilfoyle, Michael Meacher, and Chris Mullin
All nine Democratic Unionist MPs backed the government. They were: Gregory Campbell, Nigel Dodds, Jeffrey Donaldson, The Rev William McCrea, The Rev Ian Paisley, Iris Robinson, Peter Robinson, David Simpson, Sammy Wilson
The only Tory MP to back the government was former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe

ARTICLE 5

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
* (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
* (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
* (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
* (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
* (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts, or vagrants;
* (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and the charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Too bad the government has decided to derogate from that article...

Too bad the government has decided to derogate from that article...
Quite.

Too bad the government has decided to derogate from that article...
I don't see how their going to get this nonsense past the UK courts, never mind the ECHR.

Quite.

Our government and the courts have done some interesting things to the section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. Mostly to the absolute detriment of non-citizens who are the ones feeling the real brunt of indefinite detentions.

Your security certificates....you guys set up a system of special advocates, right? That would have limited access to the case being used against terror suspects? And didn't a bunch of them quit en masse because they simply couldn't represent their clients because so much was still being kept from them?

Yeah, we just amended our Anti-Terrorism Act to create the Special Advocate system cuz it worked so well for you. Fuck we're stupid.

Our government and the courts have done some interesting things to the section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. Mostly to the absolute detriment of non-citizens who are the ones feeling the real brunt of indefinite detentions.
Sad times.
Your security certificates....you guys set up a system of special advocates, right? That would have limited access to the case being used against terror suspects? And didn't a bunch of them quit en masse because they simply couldn't represent their clients because so much was still being kept from them?
We basically have dubious vaguely-secret trials. A bit like a tribunal, I suppose.
Yeah, we just amended our Anti-Terrorism Act to create the Special Advocate system cuz it worked so well for you. Fuck we're stupid.
Don't blame the citizens for this. Fucking cowardly New Labour MPs and the Northern Irish who are either separatists and hence treasonous, or unionists and paid-up criminals (it's not libel 'coz it's true!) are the issue.

Quite.

I forgot for a moment that the derogation decision was repealed :)

The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.

So yeah, this may fail in the House of Lords or before the ECHR.

Your security certificates....you guys set up a system of special advocates, right? That would have limited access to the case being used against terror suspects? And didn't a bunch of them quit en masse because they simply couldn't represent their clients because so much was still being kept from them?
One of the 'special' judges on the board quit because he found the system outrageous.

And outrageous it is; suspending habeus corpus for the first time in 800-odd years.

Wow...an expanded timetable for holding suspects in relation to a type of crime that has the potential to take millions of lives and cost millions in property damage. Fascism has arrived. :rolleyes:

Wow...an expanded timetable for holding suspects in relation to a type of crime that has the potential to take millions of lives and cost millions in property damage. Fascism has arrived. :rolleyes:
... Yes, I'm absolutely shitting myself about terrorism, and reckon that we need up to 42 days to actually find some evidence instead of charging people with something and letting the courts to decide whether they should be remanded in custody. Oh yes. And I'm even happier than Parliament is going to pick who gets over 28 days without charge.

... Yes, I'm absolutely shitting myself about terrorism...
Oh, your sarcasm has just swayed me! What was I thinking -- millions of lives taken in one single blow isn't a serious threat! We should be more worried about liquor store robberies, even despite recent terrorist attacks in London, New York, and Madrid!

...and reckon that we need up to 42 days to actually find some evidence instead of charging people with something and letting the courts to decide whether they should be remanded in custody...
Once again, you are correct -- why give law enforcement enough time to be able to track down evidence? If they can't find it right away, then they should let the suspect go...even if keeping him or her for a longer period of time would have lead to the discovery of critical evidence and saved millions of lives...

Oh yes. And I'm even happier than Parliament is going to pick who gets over 28 days without charge.
You should be, considering that in a representative democracy, you elect your representatives to make such decisions.

28 days if you're brown enough, which is in itself a breech of our rights way back to the Magna Carta. Pretty disgraceful, really. Thank you New Labour and the extremely thick public for this one...

4 weeks isnt long enough?

why the fuck would you arrest someone if you cant charge him with anything in 4 weeks? now you need 6 weeks just to bring charges? that seems a bit much.

id be pissed that they found a way to get this passed.

Oh, your sarcasm has just swayed me! What was I thinking -- millions of lives taken in one single blow isn't a serious threat!
It's not a credible threat, full stop.
We should be more worried about liquor store robberies
Uhu... what?
even despite recent terrorist attacks in London, New York, and Madrid!
Err yep...

Just remember that these happened regardless of any existing legislation of a similar type. That a suspect can now be held a bit longer than before does not change the fact that if you don't catch them, you're fucked regarding such attacks.
Once again, you are correct -- why give law enforcement enough time to be able to track down evidence? If they can't find it right away, then they should let the suspect go...even if keeping him or her for a longer period of time would have lead to the discovery of critical evidence and saved millions of lives...
Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you're not gathering any worthwhile evidence, then why should any claims against these people be taken even remotely seriously?
You should be, considering that in a representative democracy, you elect your representatives to make such decisions.
Aye, we used to have a thing called Habeas Corpus. Enshrined in the Magna Carta and everything. This made it so that the judiciary and the Houses of Parliament were seperate entities. This was a Good Thing.

4 weeks isnt long enough?

why the fuck would you arrest someone if you cant charge him with anything in 4 weeks? now you need 6 weeks just to bring charges? that seems a bit much.
Just a bit.
id be pissed that they found a way to get this passed.
Yeah, I'm pretty pissed off that New Labour would trade 800 years of common law to lose the election in 2010 slightly less. I'm going to ring my MP up and give him a fucking earful about this to be quite honest.

It's not a credible threat, full stop.
Tell that to the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the London underground bombings, and the Madrid train bombings.

Just remember that these happened regardless of any existing legislation of a similar type. That a suspect can now be held a bit longer than before does not change the fact that if you don't catch them, you're fucked regarding such attacks.
A longer period of time may make a world of difference -- who knows? Your argument basically boils down to: "Efforts to catch terrorists in the past didn't work, so why should try to implement any new ones? The new methods will probably fail, so just fuck it! Let's not try to make ourselves more protected at all!"

Innocent until proven guilty and all that. If you're not gathering any worthwhile evidence, then why should any claims against these people be taken even remotely seriously?
They're still innocent until proven guilty -- nothing about that has changed. They're being held longer, not being charged and convicted without a trial.

Aye, we used to have a thing called Habeas Corpus. Enshrined in the Magna Carta and everything. This made it so that the judiciary and the Houses of Parliament were seperate entities. This was a Good Thing.
And how does this measure end the right to a fair trial, just out of curiosity? Oh, that's right -- it doesn't. Meanwhile, how have Parliament and the judiciary been merged? The Parliament is doing what it is supposed to do -- passing laws. This measure does not interfere with the work that judges do whatsoever.

Tell that to the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the London underground bombings, and the Madrid train bombings.
Uhu. Can't bring those people back.
A longer period of time may make a world of difference -- who knows? Your argument basically boils down to: "Efforts to catch terrorists in the past didn't work, so why should try to implement any new ones? The new methods will probably fail, so just fuck it! Let's not try to make ourselves more protected at all!"
No, more "I don't honestly see how giving the police more power to keep people in custody without charge will stop anyone slipping through the net any more than the current system, to be quite honest".
They're still innocent until proven guilty -- nothing about that has changed. They're being held longer, not being charged and convicted without a trial.
I don't see how keeping people in custody for up to 42 days without any charge is even the beginnings of acceptable. If we have any evidence against any of these groups, then we can use it and charge them on something, and keep them remanded in custody. Holding people essentially without explanation for up to 42 days does nothing but antagonise the general public.
And how does this measure end the right to a fair trial, just out of curiosity? Oh, that's right -- it doesn't. Meanwhile, how have Parliament and the judiciary been merged? The Parliament is doing what it is supposed to do -- passing laws. This measure does not interfere with the work that judges do whatsoever.
It doesn't end the right to a fair trial, but it does put some of the power regarding whether people are held before trial into the hands of the House of Commons, which is not on in the slightest.

I'm sure Vamosa would be quite happy to spend six weeks in jail should the police mistakenly suspect him to be a terrorist.

I'm sure Vamosa would be quite happy to spend six weeks in jail should the police mistakenly suspect him to be a terrorist.

if thats what it takes to keep his country safe, im sure he would!

Tell that to the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the London underground bombings, and the Madrid train bombings.
Many of them agree. The deaths of your loved ones does not make the perpetrators part of an inhumanly efficient global conspiracy. It is one thing to seek to put things to rights by ensuring that people don't do it again - it is another to use the opportunity to encourage the unlawful imprisonment and detention of innocent civilians to go unchecked. And although some may grieve immensely, few will actively want to shut down free society in the way that is apparently on the table.

If we survived the IRA attacks without these laws then why do we need them now?
Our new enemies are darker of skin and hence can hide in shadows at night. We need to arrest them every evening to prevent their clandestine activities from ever achieving anything. Yes.

If we survived the IRA attacks without these laws then why do we need them now?

I've got to go 'drop the browns off at the super bowl' if you know what I mean

http://xkcd.com/168/

:D

If we survived the IRA attacks without these laws then why do we need them now?
Because Brown doesn't know what else to do. He's a fucking dinosaur - he can eat at civil liberties, stomp and make a big noise about how he's so important and that's pretty much it. At least when the meteor of economic collapse hits home, he'll be thrown in the dirt with nothing to do but turn into fossil fuel.

Too much on the metaphors?

Because Brown doesn't know what else to do. He's a fucking dinosaur - he can eat at civil liberties, stomp and make a big noise about how he's so important and that's pretty much it. At least when the meteor of economic collapse hits home, he'll be thrown in the dirt with nothing to do but turn into fossil fuel.
No, the problem with Brown is that his government is about to completely collapse - this will help to prop it up for a little bit. But really, it's fucked.
Too much on the metaphors?
Jawohl :p

And how does this measure end the right to a fair trial, just out of curiosity?
It does if the police are allowed to hold a person for 48 days without charge, send him or her to a high-security facility where he or she will have little or no contact with defence lawyers, tried in a juryless court which is concealed from public scrutiny, a secret court where evidence is not allowed to be shown to the defence nor the accused.

I'd say that fairly kills any reality of a fair trial.

Meanwhile, how have Parliament and the judiciary been merged? The Parliament is doing what it is supposed to do -- passing laws. This measure does not interfere with the work that judges do whatsoever.
Government has legislated a whole new wing of the judiciary, hand picked to staff secret courts in a way that defies one of the principle tenets of British legal custom; a tenet that stretches back to the 13th century.

Because Brown doesn't know what else to do. He's a fucking dinosaur - he can eat at civil liberties, stomp and make a big noise about how he's so important and that's pretty much it. At least when the meteor of economic collapse hits home, he'll be thrown in the dirt with nothing to do but turn into fossil fuel.

Too much on the metaphors?

Ah, as Yes, Minister put it.

We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it.

Uhu. Can't bring those people back.
What a splendidly sensitive response.

No, more "I don't honestly see how giving the police more power to keep people in custody without charge will stop anyone slipping through the net any more than the current system, to be quite honest".
Once again, you rely on a misleading, twisted version of the facts. All this measure would do is give law enforcement officials more time -- about two weeks more than what is apparently standard procedure, which is no small amount of time -- to keep suspects detained in order to more effectively gather evidence. After this time frame of 42 days is up, they will either be charged or released. To say that this is a case of the police detaining without charges is just dishonest. All this does is extend the time frame in order to give police more time to prevent a catastrophic disaster.

I don't see how keeping people in custody for up to 42 days without any charge is even the beginnings of acceptable. If we have any evidence against any of these groups, then we can use it and charge them on something, and keep them remanded in custody.
This scenario would debilitate law enforcement efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Under your preferred method, someone who is known to have been periodically meeting with known terrorists, but has so far done nothing worthy of legal recourse, should be let go. You really want to tell me that such a person is not of value to law enforcement? The fact that you would take away such a valuable source of information from law enforcement is stunning to me.

Holding people essentially without explanation for up to 42 days does nothing but antagonise the general public.
How so? Do you really think that law enforcement will waste its time picking up random groups of people who have no proven merit to their investigations? Only a small, even miniscule number of people would be detained for this time frame, so I don't see how this would antagonize the general public. Even if people felt antagonized, I wouldn't call that a respectable reason to strip law enforcement of necessary tools to conduct investigations.


It doesn't end the right to a fair trial,
So you've conceded that your argument that this measure would destroy habeas corpus. Good.
but it does put some of the power regarding whether people are held before trial into the hands of the House of Commons, which is not on in the slightest.
No, all this measure would do is extend the period of time that people would face trial. The House of Commons has left the trial process intact and unaffected.
I'm sure Vamosa would be quite happy to spend six weeks in jail should the police mistakenly suspect him to be a terrorist.
Of course I wouldn't. But, I'd be quite happy to know that because of this measure, even though I spent six weeks in jail for no reason, a terrorist attack was thwarted because the police detained a guilty person for this period of time as well.
The deaths of your loved ones does not make the perpetrators part of an inhumanly efficient global conspiracy.
Apparently efficient enough to bypass current law enforcement tools to stop them.
It is one thing to seek to put things to rights by ensuring that people don't do it again - it is another to use the opportunity to encourage the unlawful imprisonment and detention of innocent civilians to go unchecked.
Unchecked? The measure specifically states that suspected terrorists can only be detained for up to 42 days, and then they must be charged or released. Furthermore, for the suspects to be detained for that long, law enforcement must have the approval of a judge. On the contrary, the process has specific regulations on how long people may be detained, and what their rights are.
And although some may grieve immensely, few will actively want to shut down free society in the way that is apparently on the table.
So extending the time frame that law enforcement may detain suspects is the "end of free society?" Can you say hyperbole?

It does if the police are allowed to hold a person for 48 days without charge, send him or her to a high-security facility where he or she will have little or no contact with defence lawyers, tried in a juryless court which is concealed from public scrutiny, a secret court where evidence is not allowed to be shown to the defence nor the accused.

I'd say that fairly kills any reality of a fair trial.

Government has legislated a whole new wing of the judiciary, hand picked to staff secret courts in a way that defies one of the principle tenets of British legal custom; a tenet that stretches back to the 13th century.

The point of my argument specifically dealt with the 42 days aspect -- I said not one thing about secret courts or anything of the like.

Of course I wouldn't. But, I'd be quite happy to know that because of this measure, even though I spent six weeks in jail for no reason, a terrorist attack was thwarted because the police detained a guilty person for this period of time as well.

And what if no terrorist attack was thwarted? How would you feel then? Its just that MI5 have already suggested (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7442380.stm) they don't need extra days to stop terrorists.

And what if no terrorist attack was thwarted? How would you feel then?
Pissed off. But once again, that's no excuse to deprive law enforcement of effective tools for catching terrorists.
Its just that MI5 have already suggested (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7442380.stm) they don't need extra days to stop terrorists.

Oh, selective evidence...Here's some quotes from the very article you linked to:

Ms Smith [HOME SECRETARY] said extending the limit for terror suspects from 28 days to 42 days was a "safeguard, not a target", and that it was a "reasonable maximum".

It would allow suspects "through the criminal justice system in the most effective way", she added.

Questioned as to whether MI5 had asked for extended detention powers, Ms Smith said: "No, not directly, but nor did they ask for the extension from 14 to 28, nor did they ask for the extension from 7 to 14."

Asked whether the 42-day plan, part of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, would get through Parliament, she replied: "I certainly hope it does, because I believe it is the right thing to do."
They never asked for it, but they would apparently appreciate it.

Jacqui Smith is the Home Secretary, not the head of MI5.

MI5 did not say that they needed this change to operate effectively. In fact, the head of MI5 passed the buck to the prosecuting authority. And the prosecuting authority have already said that they don't want this change. All that leaves is some police officers - but they don't even have a consensus there!

The point of my argument specifically dealt with the 42 days aspect -- I said not one thing about secret courts or anything of the like.
The 48 day 'aspect' is merely part of the whole range of 'Home Security' measures Labour has championed in the name of some notion of fighting the spectre of 'International Terrorism'. The powers this bill would grant police are specifically designed to be used against terrorists, and would be used alongside the already existing secret courts, thus contributing towards an unfair trial.

The 48 day 'aspect' is merely part of the whole range of 'Home Security' measures Labour has championed in the name of some notion of fighting the spectre of 'International Terrorism'. The powers this bill would grant police are specifically designed to be used against terrorists, and would be used alongside the already existing secret courts, thus contributing towards an unfair trial.

And yet I wasn't discussing the other measures. Just this one. So your point about these other measures has no bearing on my arguments.

Jacqui Smith is the Home Secretary, not the head of MI5.
And yet, the article you cited noted her as the source of the claim that MI5 was not asking for this change. And why her? Oh, I don't know -- because her department oversees all law enforcement operations in the country?

MI5 did not say that they needed this change to operate effectively. In fact, the head of MI5 passed the buck to the prosecuting authority.
Because the members of the MI5 don't seek to set policy. Meanwhile, the head of the department that overseas the MI5 -- which implements policy -- seems to appreciate the intent of this measure, so I'll go with her.

Who needs the Magna Carta anymore anyways to protect us? Its old and the majority of it has been repealed or ignored anyways. Although replicas of it do make a very nice centre piece display above the fireplace. Time to write a new one and maybe a new US/British/Canadian/Australlian/New Zealand Constitution as well.

And yet, the article you cited noted her as the source of the claim that MI5 was not asking for this change. And why her? Oh, I don't know -- because her department oversees all law enforcement operations in the country?

Because the members of the MI5 don't seek to set policy. Meanwhile, the head of the department that overseas the MI5 -- which implements policy -- seems to appreciate the intent of this measure, so I'll go with her.

MI5 don't set policy, but they are the spooks and the experts in counter terrorism. They, along with the police and prosecution service will tell the government if the measures they currently have to fight terrorism are inadequate. So far, MI5 has declared it is none of their business because detention limits do not effect their role in counter terrorism, the prosecution service have said that they don't want the change and some police have said they wanted while many others have said they don't. Given that the majority of the services responsible for fighting terrorism don't appear to want an increase in detention levels that would suggest that either Jacqui Smith thinks she knows more about stopping terrorists than the police, prosecution service and MI5 combined or she's doing it for political rather than security reasons. Which do you think is more likely?

Once again, you rely on a misleading, twisted version of the facts. All this measure would do is give law enforcement officials more time -- about two weeks more than what is apparently standard procedure, which is no small amount of time -- to keep suspects detained in order to more effectively gather evidence. After this time frame of 42 days is up, they will either be charged or released. To say that this is a case of the police detaining without charges is just dishonest. All this does is extend the time frame in order to give police more time to prevent a catastrophic disaster.
Detaining people without or at least prior to charge is exactly what it is.


This scenario would debilitate law enforcement efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Under your preferred method, someone who is known to have been periodically meeting with known terrorists, but has so far done nothing worthy of legal recourse, should be let go. You really want to tell me that such a person is not of value to law enforcement? The fact that you would take away such a valuable source of information from law enforcement is stunning to me.
You're off on a whole different wavelength here. If someone's not actually committed a crime then they can't be charged. And any reasonably judge would reject the application to extend the length of time they could be held for.


How so? Do you really think that law enforcement will waste its time picking up random groups of people who have no proven merit to their investigations? Only a small, even miniscule number of people would be detained for this time frame, so I don't see how this would antagonize the general public. Even if people felt antagonized, I wouldn't call that a respectable reason to strip law enforcement of necessary tools to conduct investigations.

So you've conceded that your argument that this measure would destroy habeas corpus. Good.


No, all this measure would do is extend the period of time that people would face trial. The House of Commons has left the trial process intact and unaffected.
The House of Commons would have to vote on individual cases. Which is a huge change in the political machinery of the UK, and a bad one imho.


Of course I wouldn't. But, I'd be quite happy to know that because of this measure, even though I spent six weeks in jail for no reason, a terrorist attack was thwarted because the police detained a guilty person for this period of time as well.

Apparently efficient enough to bypass current law enforcement tools to stop them.

Unchecked? The measure specifically states that suspected terrorists can only be detained for up to 42 days, and then they must be charged or released. Furthermore, for the suspects to be detained for that long, law enforcement must have the approval of a judge. On the contrary, the process has specific regulations on how long people may be detained, and what their rights are.


So extending the time frame that law enforcement may detain suspects is the "end of free society?" Can you say hyperbole?



The point of my argument specifically dealt with the 42 days aspect -- I said not one thing about secret courts or anything of the like.

I repeat, if we didn't need it for the IRA, why do we need it now?

And yet, the article you cited noted her as the source of the claim that MI5 was not asking for this change. And why her? Oh, I don't know -- because her department oversees all law enforcement operations in the country?
Because she was asked on radio, whether MI5 had in anyway suggested/asked/etc for a change in the law. And she said no.
.

Because the members of the MI5 don't seek to set policy. Meanwhile, the head of the department that overseas the MI5 -- which implements policy -- seems to appreciate the intent of this measure, so I'll go with her.
You're clearly not comprehending the political set up of the UK. Jacqui Smith is a politician, an MP and a Labour minister. It's her legislation (or at the least has been told to put it through by Brown).

MI5 don't set policy, but they are the spooks and the experts in counter terrorism. They, along with the police and prosecution service will tell the government if the measures they currently have to fight terrorism are inadequate. So far, MI5 has declared it is none of their business because detention limits do not effect their role in counter terrorism, the prosecution service have said that they don't want the change and some police have said they wanted while many others have said they don't. Given that the majority of the services responsible for fighting terrorism don't appear to want an increase in detention levels that would suggest that either Jacqui Smith thinks she knows more about stopping terrorists than the police, prosecution service and MI5 combined or she's doing it for political rather than security reasons. Which do you think is more likely?
The Prosecution Service pursues pressing charges after investigations have concluded, so they aren't related to the investigation aspect of crime anyway -- law enforcement is. In this case, MI5 has refrained from making a statement on the law. Their referral to the Prosecution Service was clearly to make their views look as neutral as possible. That doesn't change the fact that the PS is not an investigative body, so their say isn't really qualified.

The Prosecution Service pursues pressing charges after investigations have concluded, so they aren't related to the investigation aspect of crime anyway -- law enforcement is. In this case, MI5 has refrained from making a statement on the law. Their referral to the Prosecution Service was clearly to make their views look as neutral as possible. That doesn't change the fact that the PS is not an investigative body, so their say isn't really qualified.

The CPS judges cases presented to them by the police, so they're in perfect position to judge if cases are being insufficiently investigated. It is not the case that the police investigate fully and then just show the CPS at the end, they work with the police, giving guidance on the sort of evidence needed etc throughout the investigative process.

Seriously, stop talking about things you clearly don't know about or understand.

The Prosecution Service pursues pressing charges after investigations have concluded, so they aren't related to the investigation aspect of crime anyway -- law enforcement is. In this case, MI5 has refrained from making a statement on the law. Their referral to the Prosecution Service was clearly to make their views look as neutral as possible. That doesn't change the fact that the PS is not an investigative body, so their say isn't really qualified.

The prosecution service is related to the criminal investigation. They will not proceed with a prosecution until they are convinced that the police - responsible for gathering the vidence - have gathered enough evidence to prove guilt. It is the direct responsibility of the prosecution service to charge a person with a crime. Given that it is the CPS who is doing the charging surely they deserve an input on how long should be given before those charges are brought about? Sir Ken Macdonald already said that "We have had major, major cases that have occurred within the currency of that time limit, since it was legislated for, and haven't encountered any difficulties in charging those we have wanted to charge and that’s why we have not requested any extension".

He also said "If there was an increase in law to 42 days, and after 26 or 27 days we wanted to extend, and we had to go before a judge, we would be saying: 28 days is not enough even to charge on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of an offence being committed – and we can’t even say there is a realistic prospect of more evidence being forthcoming in a reasonable time. That would be a very challenging application to make." So he doesn't want it. Furthermore, the police can't even reach a consensus on this measure. So if the experts don't want it, why should we force them to have it?

I don't see how their going to get this nonsense past the UK courts, never mind the ECHR.

Well, considering there is no such thing as judicial review of primary legislation in the UK, it legally doesn't matter what the courts think about it. An Act of Parliament is an Act of Parliament, with full legal force, regardless of whether or not it's been judged to be compatible with ECHR.

Given the reaction here, I am beginning to doubt the accuracy of Ipsos Mori and their 'two thirds of British people support the measure.

Well, considering there is no such thing as judicial review of primary legislation in the UK, it legally doesn't matter what the courts think about it. An Act of Parliament is an Act of Parliament, with full legal force, regardless of whether or not it's been judged to be compatible with ECHR.
The legal officers can refer is to this court
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council)

And if it's incompatible with the ECHR (convention) then they can appeal up to the ECHR (court) which could overrule the UK.

Of course it all changes (I forget exactly how it's going to work) next year with a supreme court being created/merged/etc. So if it ping pongs around for long enough then their might be a a new set of rules.

Given the reaction here, I am beginning to doubt the accuracy of Ipsos Mori and their 'two thirds of British people support the measure.

The Sun and the Daily Mail are the two most popular Britist Newspapers. Liberty is on the back burner somewhat for much of the nation, if they don't reject the term altogether.

The legal officers can refer is to this court
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Committee_of_the_Privy_Council)

Nope. The Privy Council deals almost exclusively with cases involving devolution issues and matters regarding the C of E.

And if it's incompatible with the ECHR (convention) then they can appeal up to the ECHR (court) which could overrule the UK.

Well...no. There is no court in existence that can declare primary legislation to be unlawful. The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, one of the most fundamental aspects of our constitution, makes it impossible; if an Act of Parliament says something then that is the law regardless of its compatibility with human rights legislation. All a judge can do is issue a declaration of incompatibility, essentially the court saying that the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but this does not invalidate the law. This is fairly rare, anyway, as HRA says that judges should interpret law in a manner which makes it compatible with HRA; essentially "even if it's not actually compatible, it is compatible". If it's impossible to do this, then a declaration of imcompatibility may be issued, but, as I've noted, this doesn't affect the legal standing of the Act.

Anyway, the main issue here is judicial review of primary legislation, which simply doesn't exist.

Of course it all changes (I forget exactly how it's going to work) next year with a supreme court being created/merged/etc. So if it ping pongs around for long enough then their might be a a new set of rules.

The Supreme Court takes over the judicial functions of the House of Lords and the Privy Council, that's about it. The current Law Lords will move to the Supreme Court and take on some other title, but not a lot changes apart from that.

David Davis MP has just resigned to force a by election and wil be fighting it based on this issue

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

David Davis MP has just resigned to force a by election and wil be fighting it based on this issue

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

Heard about this, pretty good move I say. These days it seems that it's actually the labour party, not the conservatives, who are the most right wing! Though that's probably not quite the case.

Heard about this, pretty good move I say. These days it seems that it's actually the labour party, not the conservatives, who are the most right wing! Though that's probably not quite the case.
The most right wing is still the BNP. Fortunately, Labour is totally discrediting right wing politics with their total incompetency and authoritarianism, so I guess there's some silver lining involved; we're not going to see the BNP taking power any time soon.

Brown succeeds once again in convincing him MPs that losing 800 years' worth of legislation regarding habeas corpus is a worthy trade for a few poll points. Eugh.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7449268.stm

Your views?

They were saying on NPR this morning that 75% of British approve of extending it - in fact, they appear to favor indefinite detention without trial if it's in the name of national security against Islamic terrorism.

Sort of a "if it's them and not us, it's a great idea".

75% is more than a few poll points.

The most right wing is still the BNP. Fortunately, Labour is totally discrediting right wing politics with their total incompetency and authoritarianism, so I guess there's some silver lining involved; we're not going to see the BNP taking power any time soon.

Nobody counts the BNP when talking about party politics. ;) They're just something you sweep under the carpet and ignore.

They were saying on NPR this morning that 75% of British approve of extending it - in fact, they appear to favor indefinite detention without trial if it's in the name of national security against Islamic terrorism.

Sort of a "if it's them and not us, it's a great idea".

75% is more than a few poll points.

I severely doubt that, link to back it up?

Heard about this, pretty good move I say. These days it seems that it's actually the labour party, not the conservatives, who are the most right wing! Though that's probably not quite the case.

Ah, let us not forget the different between right and left wing economically (Conservatives are still on the right there, although probably still more left than the US Democrats for example), and the libertarian-authoritarian axis. New Labour is significantly more authoritarian than the Conservatives currently.

Really, isn't that scary that it's the Conservative party which is the one protecting our civil liberties! Well and the Lib Dems but unfortunately despite having around a quarter of the vote they have difficulty getting parliamentary seats.

Edit: interestingly having read the article, the Lib Dems are not fielding in this by-election as a show of support. It is getting scary how many government policies are uniting the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in opposition to the government

I severely doubt that, link to back it up?

It was on Morning Edition on NPR this morning.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91415105

I think that's the one.

Auman was right.

We do not need to make this change. Hopefully it will get kicked back by the Lords. Sad that it seems two thirds of the population of the UK think this is a good idea.

What is sad about that? I think it is fine, it means extra time to get evidance, and if they are innocent then they will be compensated.

What makes me mad is the stance I saw on TV from the oppersition this morning. You know if they were in power they would have voted yes to this.

Fuckin' politics, is more about disagreeing with the other side than it is about doing the best thing for the country.

What a splendidly sensitive response.
Uhu. Why don't you ring all up the families of those victims up, tell them you're sorry for their loss, and see how many spontaneously of their deceased loved ones rise from the grave. If it's more than none, I'll concede the point, otherwise, don't be stupid.
Once again, you rely on a misleading, twisted version of the facts. All this measure would do is give law enforcement officials more time -- about two weeks more than what is apparently standard procedure, which is no small amount of time -- to keep suspects detained in order to more effectively gather evidence. After this time frame of 42 days is up, they will either be charged or released. To say that this is a case of the police detaining without charges is just dishonest. All this does is extend the time frame in order to give police more time to prevent a catastrophic disaster.
... what?

"They can detain without charge, and then try to find something incriminating, but that doesn't count as detaining without charge because I said so"
This scenario would debilitate law enforcement efforts to prevent terrorist attacks. Under your preferred method, someone who is known to have been periodically meeting with known terrorists, but has so far done nothing worthy of legal recourse, should be let go. You really want to tell me that such a person is not of value to law enforcement? The fact that you would take away such a valuable source of information from law enforcement is stunning to me.
If they have any proof of this, then they can charge people for essentially not telling the police about their dodgy friends. If there's no proof, they shouldn't be detained...
How so? Do you really think that law enforcement will waste its time picking up random groups of people who have no proven merit to their investigations? Only a small, even miniscule number of people would be detained for this time frame, so I don't see how this would antagonize the general public.
Uhu. Just because they're more bearded and turban-wearing than the average person doesn't mean that the general public really enjoys seeing people interned without trial.
Even if people felt antagonized, I wouldn't call that a respectable reason to strip law enforcement of necessary tools to conduct investigations.
Why not? You're just making trouble if you piss off the entire Muslim community by taking people away for any amount of time without any kind of charge. Hell, if you did that to any community people would be pretty pissed off.
So you've conceded that your argument that this measure would destroy habeas corpus. Good.
No, this measure still does destroy part of Habeas Corpus, because it means that criminals are put under review by politicians as well as the judiciary system, which is in breech of the seperation of powers contained within the Magna Carta, in addition to being a breech in terms of being locked up without charge, again expressedly forbidden in our common law stretching back nearly 800 years.
No, all this measure would do is extend the period of time that people would face trial. The House of Commons has left the trial process intact and unaffected.
The trial process is not intact and unaffected, the trial process is still the deeply flawed one of the 28 day measures, which is like something from East Germany.
Of course I wouldn't. But, I'd be quite happy to know that because of this measure, even though I spent six weeks in jail for no reason, a terrorist attack was thwarted because the police detained a guilty person for this period of time as well.
Uhu, what if absolutely everyone was innocent, but you still lost your job and most of your reputation because you got taken away for few weeks by the security services? I'm sure you'd still remain cheery, eh?
Apparently efficient enough to bypass current law enforcement tools to stop them.
... aye, but possibly keeping someone for an extra 14 days does not increase the likelihood of stopping a completely different group, whose actions have been left alone. This new measure is not a magic bullet to stop terrorism.
[Various security services, inc. MI5] never asked for [an extra 14 days], but they would apparently appreciate it.
I'm sure they're fine to have it, but for one thing, your quotes are from Jacqui Smith, not MI5, and for another, the director of the MI5 said it was unnecessary.

David Davis MP has just resigned to force a by election and wil be fighting it based on this issue

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

My first thought was 'what a great idea, standing up for what's right'.

Then I thought that if Labour refuse to play ball and don't field a candidate (I wouldn't - it's clearly a publicity stunt they can't possibly win), then he's going to look like a right pratt.

Ah, let us not forget the different between right and left wing economically (Conservatives are still on the right there, although probably still more left than the US Democrats for example), and the libertarian-authoritarian axis. New Labour is significantly more authoritarian than the Conservatives currently.


To be honest, although the conservative say the support a more fiscal approach, I don't think they will be significantly more right wing then labour.

They were saying on NPR this morning that 75% of British approve of extending it - in fact, they appear to favor indefinite detention without trial if it's in the name of national security against Islamic terrorism.

Sort of a "if it's them and not us, it's a great idea".

75% is more than a few poll points.
This is just a few poll points, the proles who are in favour of this because they're pretty thick are still smart enough to realise that the government still ripped them off over the whole 10p rate of tax issue.

Hydesland -

Similar figures have been reported all over the British press - the Times has it at about 70%, so do a few others.

What makes me mad is the stance I saw on TV from the oppersition this morning. You know if they were in power they would have voted yes to this.
And Cameron has said he won't repeal the legislation when he gets into office. However, it's not stopping him and Daives from spinning this as the Tories protecting civil liberties against the evil Labour monster. And Joe Public will probably buy it.

Fuckin' politics, is more about disagreeing with the other side than it is about doing the best thing for the country.
I can't decide whether Labour or the Tories are revolting me even more.

Similar figures have been reported all over the British press - the Times has it at about 70%, so do a few others.

Heh, hadn't noticed. I guess the concept of human rights does not hold such a fundamental value to the ordinary citizen.

Heh, hadn't noticed. I guess the concept of human rights does not hold such a fundamental value to the ordinary citizen.
I think it's more "If the Murdoch Press says they're baddies, it must be true!" more than anything else.

Also *how* much do they care about this. Yes, they may say they think it's a good idea but what's going to decided their votes is what's affecting them personally and that would be all the economic cock-ups Labours been doing
You'd hope so, but as Hitler (aye aye) rightly pointed out, the proles' capacity to forget is enormous.

I can't decide whether Labour or the Tories are revolting me even more.

We have that over here. I don't know whether the Democrats or the Republicans are more revolting.

Politicians are no longer interested in leadership - they take their cue from the polls, and change their positions from moment to moment to support their party winning a majority stake.

If you watch the news, and hear them "respond" to interviews (which are highly biased - the news channel will have its own slant and will either pitch easy questions or surprise harangues depending on which party it supports). The "responses" are heavily charged talking points - you can see why they're saying them, and if you know the actual background of the issue, you can see the crap they're spewing.

Joe Public buys it because 90 percent of them have no idea what's going on.

Think about it. A certain percentage of the population really doesn't give a crap. Some can't even read. The level of ignorance in Western countries (not just America) is astonishing.

It's not simply a matter of education - you can take and pass tests on history and government - but if you really don't give a shit...

There's a saying I hear over here from time to time - in 2001 the US went to war against Islamic extremism. We went to war in Afghanistan, and then later (for all the wrong reasons) in Iraq. But that's just the military. Most US citizens today are not in the military - in proportion to the size of the US population, the military is far smaller than it used to be even a decade ago.

The rest of America is at the mall. Honestly, do you think the guidos and in your case, the chavs, care one way or the other?

This is just a few poll points, the proles who are in favour of this because they're pretty thick are still smart enough to realise that the government still ripped them off over the whole 10p rate of tax issue.

Hydesland -

Similar figures have been reported all over the British press - the Times has it at about 70%, so do a few others.

Also *how* much do they care about this. Yes, they may say they think it's a good idea but what's going to decided their votes is what's affecting them personally and that would be all the economic cock-ups Labours been doing

I think it's more "If the Murdoch Press says they're baddies, it must be true!" more than anything else.

Perhaps, though its not as if the 'Murdoch Press' are particularly fond of the government either.

Perhaps, though its not as if the 'Murdoch Press' are particularly fond of the government either.
*shrugs* In this case, it's more an enemy of my enemy type affair.

Heh, hadn't noticed. I guess the concept of human rights does not hold such a fundamental value to the ordinary citizen.

Well I don't know. I maintian the right not to be blown up whilst traveling to and from work.

If this was still in the 70'-80's and it was implemented to catch members of the IRA, would so many people be up in arms about 'civil liberites' of suspected terrorists, or would we see wide spread support from our civilians?

Well I don't know. I maintian the right not to be blown up whilst traveling to and from work.
So do I, but that right is almost impossible to enforce so efficiently as to stop any attacks, ever, and doing so would be so unpleasant that people would just stay at home.
If this was still in the 70'-80's and it was implemented to catch members of the IRA, would so many people be up in arms about 'civil liberites' of suspected terrorists, or would we see wide spread support from our civilians?
We already had this in the 1970s-80s, it was just called 'internment'.

Most people simply didn't care. Realistically, this is the same. It doesn't really change anything for the majority of peoples' lives. I just find it a disgrace that due process has been chucked out of the window for a few poll points.

What is sad about that? I think it is fine, it means extra time to get evidance, and if they are innocent then they will be compensated.

What makes me mad is the stance I saw on TV from the oppersition this morning. You know if they were in power they would have voted yes to this.

Fuckin' politics, is more about disagreeing with the other side than it is about doing the best thing for the country.

Well there have been no problems with bringing terrorists to trial within the existing limit - nobody has got off because the evidence couldn't be found in time. Why are we pre-emptively choosing to extend the time? Terrorists may be more sophisticated than the IRA were in the 70's but so to have the methods for catching them.

Well there have been no problems with bringing terrorists to trial within the existing limit - nobody has got off because the evidence couldn't be found in time. Why are we pre-emptively choosing to extend the time? Terrorists may be more sophisticated than the IRA were in the 70's but so to have the methods for catching them.

The other side of the question of course is why not?

What diffrance does it make to civil liberties. Either the man held for 42 days without charge will be charged, or he will not. If not then he will be able to claim compensation, european court of human rights and all that.

So do I, but that right is almost impossible to enforce so efficiently as to stop any attacks, ever, and doing so would be so unpleasant that people would just stay at home.

We already had this in the 1970s-80s, it was just called 'internment'.

Most people simply didn't care. Realistically, this is the same. It doesn't really change anything for the majority of peoples' lives. I just find it a disgrace that due process has been chucked out of the window for a few poll points.

People will chuck anything for poll points. And not just civil liberties.

They'll chuck other people into ovens and cremate them alive, if it gets poll points.

If it didn't really change the life of the typical Briton, and the government was going to round up a small minority and execute them, in the name of national security, and if members of that minority had committed some grievous action (a 9/11 or bigger), you would probably get similar poll numbers demanding special action.

And the politicians, seeing the polls, would give it to them.

Nope. The Privy Council deals almost exclusively with cases involving devolution issues and matters regarding the C of E.

I said can. The Law officers of Parliament can refer it to the Privy Council if they're unsure as to whether Parliament is allowed to pass a law it's trying to pass.


Well...no. There is no court in existence that can declare primary legislation to be unlawful. The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, one of the most fundamental aspects of our constitution, makes it impossible; if an Act of Parliament says something then that is the law regardless of its compatibility with human rights legislation. All a judge can do is issue a declaration of incompatibility, essentially the court saying that the law is incompatible with the Human Rights Act, but this does not invalidate the law. This is fairly rare, anyway, as HRA says that judges should interpret law in a manner which makes it compatible with HRA; essentially "even if it's not actually compatible, it is compatible". If it's impossible to do this, then a declaration of imcompatibility may be issued, but, as I've noted, this doesn't affect the legal standing of the Act.

Anyway, the main issue here is judicial review of primary legislation, which simply doesn't exist.
All a British judge can do is that. If they appeal all up to European level then the judges have more powers. (Though exactly what I forget).

The most right wing is still the BNP
Technically, apart from their immigration policies the BNP is very left wing.

Edit: interestingly having read the article, the Lib Dems are not fielding in this by-election as a show of support. It is getting scary how many government policies are uniting the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in opposition to the government
We've hit that seat hard before with no success. If we stand a candidate have to defend a deposit and commit people to try and defend our vote etc. I'd say the main reason (apart from agreeing with the principle) is that we're putting everyone in Henley to try and win Boris' old seat.

The other side of the question of course is why not?

What diffrance does it make to civil liberties. Either the man held for 42 days without charge will be charged, or he will not. If not then he will be able to claim compensation, european court of human rights and all that.

Why change the law if it is not needed? Why pick 42 days - why not pick indefinitely...37 and 3/4 days...there is no evidence that any of them will stop terrorism any more effectively, whereas this kind of swing towards authoritarianism is a victory for the terrorists.

We already had this in the 1970s-80s, it was just called 'internment'.

And the DUP were very much opposed to it...

The other side of the question of course is why not?

What diffrance does it make to civil liberties. Either the man held for 42 days without charge will be charged, or he will not. If not then he will be able to claim compensation, european court of human rights and all that.

Because you are being locked up for a month and a half. You'd likely loose your job, your home if you were renting, fall behind on your mortage payments etc... not to mention the psychological trauma of having your freedom removed for that length of time, the pressure of constant questioning from the police (psychologically traumatic at the best of times but especially when you know your not going to be able to get bail or any sort of reprieve for possibly another month).

Not to mention to psychological pressure of not know what is going to happen to you. Most prisoners attempt suicide when on remand, predominantly because of the uncertainty. They don't know how long they're going to be there, what the outcome of a trial will be etc... it's incredibly psychologically traumatic. Now imagine if you're being locked up and you don't even know what you are being CHARGED with, if you are going to be charged.

I'm sorry, I do not believe that there is any amount of money that can compensate for all that.

(v)

I said can. The Law officers of Parliament can refer it to the Privy Council if they're unsure as to whether Parliament is allowed to pass a law it's trying to pass.

Where on earth did you get that from? There is no limit on what Parliament is "allowed" to pass. Parliament can pass whatever it likes with no legal restraint. Are you confusing Parliament with the devolved legislatures?

All a British judge can do is that. If they appeal all up to European level then the judges have more powers. (Though exactly what I forget).

Nothing the ECHR does affects the validity in law of any Act of Parliament.

Well, considering there is no such thing as judicial review of primary legislation in the UK, it legally doesn't matter what the courts think about it. An Act of Parliament is an Act of Parliament, with full legal force, regardless of whether or not it's been judged to be compatible with ECHR.
Sure, but an Act of Parliament that has been deemed incompatible with the ECHR or the HRA is likely to suffer in public opinion, while the Lords and the Opposition can have a field day with it.

It's not exactly a PR coup when judges in the UK and Strasbourg declare an Act of Parliament to be breaching human rights.

Sure, but an Act of Parliament that has been deemed incompatible with the ECHR or the HRA is likely to suffer in public opinion, while the Lords and the Opposition can have a field day with it.

It's not exactly a PR coup when judges in the UK and Strasbourg declare an Act of Parliament to be breaching human rights.

Public opinion in the UK is wildly in favor of this law.

Sure, but an Act of Parliament that has been deemed incompatible with the ECHR or the HRA is likely to suffer in public opinion, while the Lords and the Opposition can have a field day with it.

It's not exactly a PR coup when judges in the UK and Strasbourg declare an Act of Parliament to be breaching human rights.

Yes, but public opinion, as important politically as it is, wouldn't alter the legal standing of 42 day detention, and wouldn't prevent it from being used.

What the UK needs to do is ditch the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty, and make Parliament subject to entrenched human rights legislation, with full judicial review of all legislation.

Not that it's likely to happen anytime soon.

What is sad about that? I think it is fine, it means extra time to get evidance, and if they are innocent then they will be compensated.

What makes me mad is the stance I saw on TV from the oppersition this morning. You know if they were in power they would have voted yes to this.

Fuckin' politics, is more about disagreeing with the other side than it is about doing the best thing for the country.

Hm. Biggest problem is that 42 days in jail is going to really mess up your life. You'll almost certainly lose your job, and a bunch of other problems as well. Even 28 days is not good.

Also, if you do not have enough evidence to bring some sort of charges, why in the name of God are you arresting them!?!?!? Explain, please, why it could ever be necessarily to pre-emptively arrest them, without even having enough evidence to go before a court and say "This is what we're going to charge them with." If you can't do that, I don't care if they're building nuclear bombs, you should not be able to arrest them without evidence. I consider this fundamental to any democratic society.

<snip>
Nothing the ECHR does affects the validity in law of any Act of Parliament.

EDIT: Ignore the below, it's incorrect.
Incorrect. The ECHR can in fact strike down legislation that contradicts EU law. Somewhat controversial, but they can. And as this legislation may very well contravene the ECHR, if/when it gets referred up there, a judgement against it will remove it as a law. Go look up the Factortame case, which established the legal precedent.

Basically, EU law does actually have supremacy to national law in EU members. Bet you didn't know that!

(Wooh, Politics A Level FTW!)
EDIT: See post #97, which delivers the smackdown on this. Ignore the comments between these two edit marks, etc, etc.

Public opinion in the UK is wildly in favor of this law.
Any forthcoming sources on that assertion?

Yes, but public opinion, as important politically as it is, wouldn't alter the legal standing of 42 day detention, and wouldn't prevent it from being used.
Obviously. But it's a step.

Anyhoo as you and I have said on here and other threads, I doubt we'll see it get put on the statute books.

Incorrect. The ECHR can in fact strike down legislation that contradicts EU law. Somewhat controversial, but they can. And as this legislation may very well contravene the ECHR, if/when it gets referred up there, a judgement against it will remove it as a law. Go look up the Factortame case, which established the legal precedent.

You're getting your European bodies mixed up. The European Convention on Human Rights isn't EU law, for a start, it's a treaty signed in 1950 through the Council of Europe.

Secondly, the European Court of Human Rights isn't an EU body, it's a body set up in the late '90s, and run by the Council of Europe, to decide on alleged breaches of the convention. The only thing it can do in order to try and enforce its judgements is expell a country from the Council of Europe. Judgements made by the European Court of Human Rights have no legal bearing on domestic law.

You're mistaking the European Court of Human Rights (non-EU court) for the European Court of Justice (EU court). Very different things, with very different functions.

In any case, the ECJ has no authority to "strike down" primary legislation. The House of Lords has previously held that the ECJ has no authority "to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom" (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council). They've also held that if Parliament were to pass legislation that was expressly in contravention with EU law, the courts would be obliged to apply that law before EU law (Lord Denning essentially formulated this, I can't find a reference for the case, though). Furthermore, where a court applies EU law over UK law, they have not affected the legal standing of the domestic legislation; they had merely followed a legal obligation to apply one law over another.


Basically, EU law does actually have supremacy to national law in EU members. Bet you didn't know that!

The idea that EU law has supremacy over domestic law is a fairly fundamental aspect of the functioning of the EU as a legal body, and is really entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Another interesting, yet irrelevent, point is that EU law is implemented in the UK through Statutory Instruments, which are secondary legislation, and, as a result, are entirely open to judicial review.

(Wooh, Politics A Level FTW!)

Wooh, 64% in my Public and Constitutional Law module this year in my Law degree course FTW.

You're getting your European bodies mixed up. The European Convention on Human Rights isn't EU law, for a start, it's a treaty signed in 1950 through the Council of Europe.

Secondly, the European Court of Human Rights isn't an EU body, it's a body set up in the late '90s, and run by the Council of Europe, to decide on alleged breaches of the convention. The only thing it can do in order to try and enforce its judgements is expell a country from the Council of Europe. Judgements made by the European Court of Human Rights have no legal bearing on domestic law.

You're mistaking the European Court of Human Rights (non-EU court) for the European Court of Justice (EU court). Very different things, with very different functions.

In any case, the ECJ has no authority to "strike down" primary legislation. The House of Lords has previously held that the ECJ has no authority "to touch or qualify the conditions of Parliament's legislative supremacy in the United Kingdom" (Thoburn v Sunderland City Council). They've also held that if Parliament were to pass legislation that was expressly in contravention with EU law, the courts would be obliged to apply that law before EU law (Lord Denning essentially formulated this, I can't find a reference for the case, though). Furthermore, where a court applies EU law over UK law, they have not affected the legal standing of the domestic legislation; they had merely followed a legal obligation to apply one law over another.




The idea that EU law has supremacy over domestic law is a fairly fundamental aspect of the functioning of the EU as a legal body, and is really entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Another interesting, yet irrelevent, point is that EU law is implemented in the UK through Statutory Instruments, which are secondary legislation, and, as a result, are entirely open to judicial review.



Wooh, 64% in my Public and Constitutional Law module this year in my Law degree course FTW.

*wikis a little*

You're entirely correct, and I was wrong. Withdrawing comments.

Also, if you do not have enough evidence to bring some sort of charges, why in the name of God are you arresting them!?!?!? Explain, please, why it could ever be necessarily to pre-emptively arrest them, without even having enough evidence to go before a court and say "This is what we're going to charge them with." If you can't do that, I don't care if they're building nuclear bombs, you should not be able to arrest them without evidence. I consider this fundamental to any democratic society.


Some of the issues are to with the the fact that police can no longer continue questioning after an offender has been charged and that a lot of surveillance evidence is not admissible in court.

Now of course to me the most obvious step when faced with these issues would be to, I don't know, allow continuation of questioning after charging or, with appropriate safeguards the admission of certain surveillance evidence. These options have been suggested by multiple bodies as a better solution than effectively suspending habeas corpus.

*wikis a little*

You're entirely correct, and I was wrong. Withdrawing comments.

*dittos*

Now I have to work out what Clegg meant by 'courts/judges/whatever he said' in PMQs.

*dittos*

Now I have to work out what Clegg meant by 'courts/judges/whatever he said' in PMQs.

Possibly referring to the Law Lords, who sit in the House of Lords?

Any forthcoming sources on that assertion?


Earlier in the thread. Yootopia also backed it up.

(v)

I second that!

Possibly referring to the Law Lords, who sit in the House of Lords?

By tradition the Law Lords don't take part in the law making process. Separation of powers and all that.

*dittos*

Now I have to work out what Clegg meant by 'courts/judges/whatever he said' in PMQs.

I literally have no idea. This is the quote from Hansard:
Mr. Clegg: Everyone knows that the Prime Minister’s proposal will not become law—it will be blocked in the other place, the Equality and Human Rights Commission will challenge it in court and the European Court of Human Rights will declare it illegal—so why on earth is he playing politics with our liberties for a Bill that no one thinks is necessary, no one thinks will work in practice and everyone knows will never reach the statute book?

The only part of what he said that actually makes sense is about the House of Lords blocking it.

Earlier in the thread.
You mean when you linked to a US NPR broadcast?

Hardly definitive proof that "75% of the British public" supports this. Unless you've got access to the studies mentioned on NPR?

Yootopia also backed it up.
Not that I can see.

You mean when you linked to a US NPR broadcast?

Hardly definitive proof that "75% of the British public" supports this. Unless you've got access to the studies mentioned on NPR?


Not that I can see.

Here on NS, NPR being the non-conservative source that it is, is considered good.

Apparently it's in the papers in the UK, in the 70% range for approval.

Here on NS, NPR being the non-conservative source that it is, is considered good.

Apparently it's in the papers in the UK, in the 70% range for approval.

Even if it is popular - and I personally think it will be popular, as this is the only reason I can think of that the government would do this - why are they ignroing the advice of the people who will fight terrorism who tend to be at best apathetic to this legislation or at worse opposed or concerned it will encourage extremism?

Even if it is popular - and I personally think it will be popular, as this is the only reason I can think of that the government would do this - why are they ignroing the advice of the people who will fight terrorism who tend to be at best apathetic to this legislation or at worse opposed or concerned it will encourage extremism?

I believe you already have all the extremists you're going to get.

If they have already resorted to recruiting the mentally deficient Briton (as they did a week or so ago), then their recruiting pool is finished.

The extremists they already have are already extremists.

Personally, I can't see you, for instance, joining jihad as a suicide bomber for Allah, and desiring the implementation of Sharia law, and work for their cause because you believe the Islamic extremists will repeal the evil legislation in question. It just doesn't work.

Yes, but public opinion, as important politically as it is, wouldn't alter the legal standing of 42 day detention, and wouldn't prevent it from being used.

The monetary compensation the UK would have to pay to guilty and innocents alike as well as the pressure from other European countries could though...

Besides, the political ramifications could be difficult to forsee.