h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am anything but a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly do not wish to condone institutionalised torture.

This quote from Deborah Orr in this morning's Independent sheds some light on the police motivation:

'The crucial point that the police are concerned with (and keen not to publicise) is that they no longer have the right to question a suspect after they have charged him. This fact, coupled with the fact that those kept in a police cell will be allowed no visits from family and friends, while those in prison cells will only be allowed such visits if they are backed by the police and the judiciary, suggests that what the police are really interested in is the ability to isolate and interrogate suspects over a long period. The real issue is whether or not we wish to give the nod to psychological torture in our name. That is the issue that should be debated.'

And this legilation would not have prevented the 7th July bombers. Again we are being spun the line 'If only we could tell you what we know, then you'd back us'. Yes like WMD, and 45 minutes and Uranium from Niger.

Unlike Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, and I have lived in Azerbaijan, we are not afraid of our police. But if these increasingly draconian laws are passed we soon will be.

>Overall, the negative effects on British citizens will exceed the damage done by the bombs, IMO.<

I'd venture no one you knew was killed, injured or in the likely area of the July 7th bombings, then. Trust me when i tell you the damage done to my faith in my fellow countrymen (as the bombers were) was pretty well damaged.

>'The crucial point that the police are concerned with (and keen not to publicise) is that they no longer have the right to question a suspect after they have charged him.<

This is still nonsense. They can chance their arm and question after charging on the same offence. It'll likely be chucked out by the Courts, but it's no great certainty.

They can certainly question him about OTHER offences after charge. An amazing number of offences are detected in this country by retro-active finger-print analysis, which simply wouldn't work if this idiotic carte-blanche statement was true.

Well I'll let you debate that with Deboarh Orr but whenever I've seen or heard her she's been pretty accurate. I also assume the article would have been vetted by the Indy's lawyers.

"they no longer have the right to question a suspect after they have charged him.<

This is still nonsense. "

If it's nonsense, why do people who should know keep on saying it, in the press and on the radio and television?

SoRB

"If it's nonsense, why do people who should know keep on saying it, in the press and on the radio and television?"

Are these the same people who are trying to get the legislation through - or people getting their information from those who want to get the legislation through?

Is it time email R4 and prod them on this point?

Having listened to the Press yesterday trying to get my boss to issue an 'official statement' on something he repeatedly told them he knew nothing about and that was in any event being handled by the Central Press Office you'll forgive me if I tend to treat them as dilletantes at best when taking about the actuality of the Law in this country at at other times as downright liars.

The Police CAN continue to question a prisoner after charge about the offence he is charged with. It is a matter for the court (ie the Judge) to decide whether he deems that questioning innappropriate or oppressive. Section 78 (I thin) of PACVE is the governing rule, but it can be broken without a prosecution failing.

The Police CAN question a prisoner about other offences not the subject of the present charge. How irresponsible would it be for the Police to say 'Well, we've charged him with the burglary from last night but his fingerprints have matched those from an unsolved murder from a couple of months ago but we can't question him as he's been charged already with something else.'

Ridiculous.

P-C:

:

Hi !

Correct. It's always difficult to see the overall picture when you're involved somehow. Nevertheless, I believe that more families and communities will be damaged - in the medium to long term - by the imprisonment of citizens that turn out to be innocent than the damage caused by terrorist attacks. I could be wrong, of course, but this is what I (currently) think: just my .

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"In this country you can be arrested and held without charge for up to 14 days (I think...) already. If, at the end of that time, the police have *anything* on you *at all* they can then charge you with it - which then allows them to keep you in custody, on remand, until the time of your trial. Remand can last *months*.

Wrong a judge can remand you if they feel that you ought to be locked up because you might skip bail or be a danger whilst at large. the Police can only present evidence.

What is wrong with this system I dont know. If under the "NEW" circumstances the police are sure they dont need to even tell the defendant they could just tell the Judge, but they and Blair want to side step all the normal legal checks.

>It's always difficult to see the overall picture when you're involved somehow.<

I find it very very difficult to express how angry that statement makes me without resorting to four letter words.

I'd suggest it's always difficult to see the overall picture when your sense of moral superiority over others is bigger than your focal length.

Well it turns out the Son of the Manse didn't have to return from Israel for the vote, he was twinned with Vince Cable, an arrangment that Cable didn't break.

Must have returned to try some Scottish hard man tatics on the dissenters.

"Must have returned to try some Scottish hard man tatics on the dissenters."



Is there a difference between Scottish and non-Scottish hard man tactics?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Ben Franklin


Seems like you brits could take a lesson from "US".

e.g. what good has the patriot act, or any part of it, done for the US?

If then this whole thing turns on the proceedures of evidence collection (length of time to decrypt things, forensics, PACE etc) - then surely the argument should be about reforming those aspects of the law and policework *not* locking people up for up to 90 days without charge.

For instance, I know Blue Shark has been pretty clear on this point already, but just for arguments sake, *if* it were the case that police couldn't question suspects after charging them - write into law an exception for cases of suspected Terrorism.

I don't know why the principles of Guantanamo Bay are being applied to mainland Britain. A worse precedent for due process I struggle to think of.

Blues, I dont think PC was being short sighted so much as taking a narrow view.

I think we will have more people willing to support or become terrorists in this country if the proposed laws are used injudiciously.

Consequently I think PC has a point when you consider the potential damage those motivated by this disproportionate oppression could create both physically, emotionally and socially.

I have never, it seems, had as much faith in my fellow country men as you seem to have had. I did honestly hope with I thought good chance of being right that we would never see the kind of terrorism we saw on the 7th July. Yet I knew too that British people were no different to any others and that given enough motivation we could see acts like the London pub bombings or any of the range of violent acts carried out NI para-militaries.

Lets think about where the current wave of Islamist terrorism was born. It was born in countries where Muslims acted against other muslims becausae of internal opression. These terrorist groups later gained converts and opened their range of targets to aim at western imperialism.

While the explicit support for regimes like Sadam's, Saudi Arabia's and Israels increased the frequency and magnitude of attacks against westerners and targets in the west have also increased. If laws which allow extra (and saddest of all pointless) pressures are put on people who already feel like targets for oppression are passed we will lose more than we will gain by doing so.

one love

Just heard a worrying thing on the news: Apparently Labour have rigged the vote order so that the 90 days option is up first then 60 , then 28. If 90 is approved in the initial vote, then the other options won't be tabled.

Franklin, Jefferson and the like were part of the golden age of American thought, that nobody can deny. But just how many rpm would they be spinning in their graves right now?

322 no

291 aye

90 days has been defeated.

I've done calculations which indicate that the torque and rpm's of the US founding fathers spinning in their graves could generate enough power to drive half of the SUV's currently in use in the US.