Not satisfied with the 28 days detention, the police and government are now pushing for 90 days again (and some police are actually asking for indefinite detention).

This "drip drip" is just what I predicted.

Of the six people detained so far for 28 days - three were charged and the other three released without any charge at all (life suitable destroyed no doubt).

I note there are riots currently in the Philippines where the Gov has just introduced THREE days detention !

Given that one of the doctors (the one in Australia) has committed the heinous crime of giving someone a mobile phone sim card .... where will it all end?

I note that my staircase is full of useless sim-cards given away for no apparent reason to our nipper who applied for them online via various mobile companies.


In the light of the allegations of a crime of "giving away a sim card", the mobile companies may well be advised to stop trying to get people to swap networks over using this promotional tool.

I ordered four free sims just because I could. Not sure what possessed me. I don't need them. If I give them away, do I risk 360 days in custody??

Aha!
Read "Cell" by Stephen King, you shall leave the house without a mobile without that sense of loss you used to have!
Worryingly, I have lost four mobiles to date, and do enjoy life better without constantly checking my pockets for the wretched things. They are obviously essential sometimes, but a lot less so than we have become to believe.

I was always staunchly anti-mobile, and didn't own one until 1999. Since then I have totally sold out and can't imagine life without one. I'm sure this dependence is all of my own making. Must read Cell, Mart.

We seem to have drifted way off ITK's topic!

To drag it back to topic...

I don't know if more days is reasonable or not, opinions please.

How many days detention is acceptable and how do you get to this figure?

zooloo wrote:
To drag it back to topic...

I don't know if more days is reasonable or not, opinions please.

How many days detention is acceptable and how do you get to this figure?

Obviously, when searching computer files etc, extra time is needed - but the police are largely using these new laws as a "trawling" exercise (arrest someone and then see if we can find anything !)

Thats entirely against the principles of British justice.

28 days is an awful long time to hold someone "just in case" he may have given someone a mobile phone sim card and then the recipient used it unlawfully !

Again I feel totally in sync with ITK (welcome back!) - knowing just how dodgy, corrupt and incompetent the police can be, giving them more time to stitch up innocent men and women seems a trifle unfair.

How much time is enough time?

This latest request for extra time to hold people without charge until the police can "find" some evidence is just another step down the road to becoming a totalitarian police state.

OK terrorism is a very serious issue for us all, but indefinite detention ? the police here in the UK already have some of the most draconian powers in the free world, for instance there is no thing thing as false arrest now, the police can arrest anyone at any time for any reason.

For now the police only want indefinite detention for terror suspects but who is to say in the future that they will not say that suspected drug traffickers or suspeceted burglers meet the same criteria for indefinite detention. IMHO we should be very frightened of going down this road and handing out more powers to the police.

zooloo wrote:
How much time is enough time?

Hard to say ... in the Philippes they are rioting in the streets over THREE days ! The USA has, I believe, a maximum of 10 days. Here its already 28 days, and the Gov want that increased to 90 (and many police want it to be indefinite !).

Before we even discuss time frames I think that we should look at a French system, where the police have to present the outline of their case (to show they have one !), and the initial evidence, to a Magistrate before ANY period of detention is allowed !

Phil wrote:
This latest request for extra time to hold people without charge until the police can "find" some evidence is just another step down the road to becoming a totalitarian police state.

Fully Agreed

Anyone else remember internment in Northern Ireland? The police jailed anyone suspected of involvement in the troubles. While all these "terrorists" were in jail - Britain was subjected to the biggest bombing campaign ever ! - showing that the police had either got the wrong people - or that thousands of others had "joined-up" outraged at the loss of civil liberties.

OK terrorism is a very serious issue for us all, but indefinite detention ? the police here in the UK already have some of the most draconian powers in the free world, for instance there is no thing thing as false arrest now, the police can arrest anyone at any time for any reason.

Let's not forget WHO brought bombers to our shores.

Did we really expect to go around the world bombing other countries on fake "evidence" and "dodgy dossiers" and expect no response?

For now the police only want indefinite detention for terror suspects but who is to say in the future that they will not say that suspected drug traffickers or suspeceted burglers meet the same criteria for indefinite detention. IMHO we should be very frightened of going down this road and handing out more powers to the police.

Like I said in the original post .... drip, drip !
ONCE your freedoms have gone - you never get them back !

Thanks for the replies.

I'm still confused, I haven't found a clear reference on why it's "necessary" to keep people in custody for so long.

Anyone know why terrorists are a different case to criminals or can point me to where there is please?

zooloo wrote:
Thanks for the replies.

I'm still confused, I haven't found a clear reference on why it's "necessary" to keep people in custody for so long.

Anyone know why terrorists are a different case to criminals or can point me to where there is please?

So are we, Zooloo !

I can only conclude that people are being detained merely on a "whim" and that after they are in custody the police then begin a search to try and find some evidence against them.

This is of course against UK law. There should be clear evidence of an offense BEFORE anyone is arrested / detained.

In the case of the recent fire bomb at Glasgow airport, 3 people have now been released without any charge (after more than 2 weeks in detention).

A Doctor (in Australia) has been charged with supplying a sim card. Another man in the UK has been charged with "having evidence and not informing the police" (although its very unclear what this "evidence" is supposed to be).

Thanks ITK.

You may be you "...can only conclude that people are being detained merely on a 'whim'" and that troubles me.

You could also conclude the opposite given that there is no supporting information/evidence to sustain your view.

Starting out with an obvious bias and no evidence then acting as if this opinion is truth is at best disingenuous.

If we criticise Tabloids for sweeping generalisations, bias confirmation and lack of facts should be we not avoid these things ourselves too?