b3ta.com board

Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 8457520 (Thread)

But 42 days

with absolutely no charge at all?

I'm more concerned by the erosion of the right to remain silent.

(

Thinker, Thu 12 Jun 2008, 10:25, archived)

i know it does seem a bit off

and i know i really should be leaping up and down shouting, but for some crazy reason i can't get 'it's only another couple of weeks' out of my head. i may change my apathetic view once the government snatch squads start rounding up scores of people when trade's a bit slow, just for the hell of it.

edit/ and as for the right to remain silent, i may be wrong but i seem to recall in the aftermath of hatfield/potters bar train crashes
we wanted the heads of those responsible for knowing about the failings but keeping quiet paraded through the streets on pointed sticks, is there not a similarity

(

god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback, Thu 12 Jun 2008, 10:32, archived)

Of course,

Habeas Corpus should never have been suspended; arresting and detaining someone without charge for a week is bad. Two weeks, three weeks, 90 days; after Habeas Corpus itself is taken away, the length of time hardly matters.

So the extension doesn't bother me at all. I don't care how long we can be detained for without reason; I care that it can happen at all.

(

Thinker, Thu 12 Jun 2008, 10:37, archived)

*imposes control order*

(

Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 12 Jun 2008, 10:43, archived)

a very good point

and again my naivety may be getting the better of me, but i still like to think that in the vast majority of cases, the old bill do only detain folk that they think are wrong'uns for any longer than they need to, i dunno.

(

god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback, Thu 12 Jun 2008, 10:54, archived)

But...

In the vast majority of cases, its led to nothing.

And now they've got this added bonus of being compensated for the intelligence services half assed approach to preventing terrorism.

Lock em up, then figure out what they've done/what they're planning to do.

Terrorism is such a broad term. Its a wonder they haven't grabbed hold of Fathers for Justice yet.

What happens if they start banging up people who were planning protests?

(Kaplaaah Wasting time on the net since 1994., Thu 12 Jun 2008, 11:25, archived)

i do wish i could completely disagree with you

but i can't.
i'm not smart enough or boned up on all of the intricacies of the law enough, and far to slow at typing to debate this on here properly.
i do think doing all of this under the guise of preventing terrorism is a bit of a non starter.
i'd much rather a few more doors got kicked in and the old bill made more of a nuisance of themselves for 'lower' level stuff, the kind of things that would actually make a difference to
society, but then we'd be passing hundreds of new laws every week to keep up with the bad guys. one law fits all is far from ideal i agree but i don't have a clue what the answer is.

(

god save the queen making another unremarkable comeback, Thu 12 Jun 2008, 11:41, archived)

We've already got the laws for them to do their jobs.

Im not an expert... but Im fairly certain that it was already illegal to blow stuff up - we got Guy Fawkes with that one a fair few years ago...

We've got plenty of laws that work already. You cant conspire to kill someone. You cant hurt people, rob people or wank in the street.

(Kaplaaah Wasting time on the net since 1994., Thu 12 Jun 2008, 13:35, archived)

Hmm.

Even if she didn't say a word to the coppers, perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to cause and explosion will get her banged up.

(

Colonel Boris "...a desperate Buzzfeed imitation...", Thu 12 Jun 2008, 11:03, archived)

Ah, but that's not what she's been charged with.

She's been convicted of failing to disclose information. In other words, she has been convicted for remaining silent.

Which isn't a crime. It's a right.

(

Thinker, Thu 12 Jun 2008, 11:12, archived)