Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
so basicly if the authorities caught osama bin laden in London ,you'd let him go free after 28 days ,just because more time was needed to gather evidence
|
That is not what I said, "basically" or otherwise
Furthermore, as Xaccers has already pointed out, do you really think the authorities would need even 28 days - let alone 42 days - if by some freakish occurrence bin Laden was arrested in the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
i cant see a problem with 42 days [you ask for a reason for this ] i can give you 52 reasons ,thats how many people died 7/7/05 in the london bombings, or how about the twin towers in new york ,all of those people had the right to be safe . but not if the bleeding heart liberal do-gooders get there way . the world has changed since 9/11 ,how can one persons liberty be more important than the safety of thousands.
|
42 days would not have prevented 7/7.
Oh, & since when have the Tories (including David "Capital Punishment" Davis) been "bleeding heart liberal do-gooders"?
Where is the
need for 42 days?
At no point has anyone in the Government actually shown exactly why it is needed.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has accepted that there has not yet been a single case where the police needed more than 28 days.
Sir Ian Blair, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, has accepted that there has not yet been a single case where the police needed more than 28 days.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has said "42 days" is not necessary, due to the recent implementation of the "threshold test" for charging terror suspects. Instead of requiring enough evidence to stand a "realistic prospect of conviction", terror suspects can now be charged where there is enough evidence to support a "reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed an offence" and where it is likely that additional evidence will soon be obtained.
(
Linky)
Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, has criticised "42 days", has said the Bill was "unacceptable", has said the concessions to add "additional safeguards" do not go far enough, has said 42 days is unnecessary due to the new "threshold test", and has vowed to lead the fight against 42 days in the House of Lords.
Lord Goldsmith, former Attorney General, has criticised "42 days", and has said it would destroy society's "fundamental values".
The House of Commons
Home Affairs Select Committee has criticised "42 days", and has said that "neither the police nor the Government has made a convincing case that the current limit of 28 days is inadequate at this time".
The Commons/Lords
Joint Select Committee on Human Rights has criticised "42 days", and has pointed out that it would be illegal under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Power
already exists to extend the pre-charge detention limit by 30 days, in case of a national emergency, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The CCA has stronger safeguards than the Counter-Terrorism Bill.[although... the CCA is now going to be amended by the Counter-Terrorism Bill (assuming it passes) to prevent the CCA from being able to be used to extend pre-charge detention for terror suspects].
Also, why not allow the use of "intercept evidence" in prosecutions? If such evidence were admissible, it could be used to enable earlier charging.
In my opinion, the only reasons Brown has staked so much on "42 days" are, for example, to emphasise his authority (oops), and (of course) to attempt to make the Tories look "soft on terror". Oh, & New Labour's fondness for Authoritarianism & trampling on traditional & fundamental British liberties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Interesting. I'd still like someone to explain why the 28 days could not just be extended if needs be under current legisaltion either by rearrest or use of what I seem to recall (could be wrong on that) are existing emergency powers.
|
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could be used to extend pre-charge detention by 30 days in case of a national emergency [see above].
---------- Post added at 21:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:28 ----------
Back to the specific topic...
I do wonder if Labour will field a candidate.
If they don't, it could be seen as cowardice by some.
And if they do, he/she is likely to get slaughtered at the polls.
And I find the idea of Kelvin MacKenzie standing rather ridiculous. [And would he stand as an Independent, or as a member of the Rupert Murdoch Party?]
Join CF
You are here: 
