Detention plan:Can someone explain what it is..?

  barca1 14:50 12 Jun 2008

WHY has David davies quit as i miss the BIG thing the mp's are having about it, to me been a normal working class person its just a few extra weeks they can now keep susspected terrorist's Right OR WRONG..?

Why is there a HUGE fiasco about it all..???

Please if someone could explain as its headlines everywhere..??

click here

  crosstrainer 14:59 12 Jun 2008

Rumor has it (just heard on five live) That he may be going to start his own political party....Deep joy (: just what we need.

  interzone55 15:16 12 Jun 2008

The big deal with the detention plan is that if Golden Brown lost it was a sure fire way of getting rid of him.

This is why it is a big story.

Other than that, it's only a small step from 42 days without charge to internment, and we don't want to start that again

  Forum Editor 15:29 12 Jun 2008

Police may hold a suspect under the terms of the 2006 Terrorism Act for a period of 28 days without charge - then he or she must be released or charged with an offence under the act.

The government and the Police want the 'without charge' detention period to be extended - to 42 days - because the huge amount of investigation and collation of evidence in terrorism cases often cannot be completed within 28 days. They say that computer evidence is almost always encrypted, and it takes a long time to decode it.

That's what the Police and government say.

The facts are somewhat difficult to align with the claims, however, because there have only been six people who have so far been held for a length of time approaching the existing limit, and five of those were in connection with one investigation; two of them were finally charged, and three were released. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) claims that on several occasions investigating officers have been under great pressure as the 28-day deadline loomed.

Under the current legislation there is an emergency measure that enables the 28-day period to be extended to 30 days if the situation is 'grave' - perhaps in time of war, or imminent war. The present Director of Public Prosecutions is against the 42 day period, as are many lawyers, civil rights groups, and Members of parliament.

The vote in the Commons, even though it went in the government's favour, doesn't mean that 42 days is a sure thing - the bill still has to be passed by the house of Lords, and that isn't going to happen.

Finally, even if the 42 day period was permitted it wouldn't be a discretionary power, available to Police. The Police and prosecutors would have to satisfy the Home Secretary that there was a grave danger, and they would have to explain what they mmeant in writing. If the Home Secretary agreed, he or she could sign an order, but would have to tel the House of Commons within two days of doing so, and both the Commons and the Lords would have to ratify the decision.

  Earthsea 15:36 12 Jun 2008

I find David Davis' actions rather bizarre. Perhaps he's going through some sort of middle-age crisis.

  Stuartli 15:40 12 Jun 2008

Labour MP Diane Abbot gave a particularly articulate and reasoned argument against the need for the 42 day ruling during yesterday's debate; in contrast Home Secretary Jacqui Smith seemed very lacklustre in presenting the government's case.

I've never come across anyone yet (and I know some people, including myself, who in theory would be very much in favour of such a bill) who supports such a measure.

It's felt that present legislation is more than adequate.

  anskyber 15:47 12 Jun 2008

I agree.

I remain unconvinced and the supporters seem to provide little of substance the help convince me.

  anskyber 15:50 12 Jun 2008

The issue of DD may turn out to be a lame exercise. The Lib dems have said they will not stand against him and Labour would do well to take the same view.

  Forum Editor 15:52 12 Jun 2008

for someone - under the presumption of innocence, remember - to be held captive without a charge being brought. In today's world I would have thought 28 days long enough to do whatever decryption work that might be necessary, and if it's not perhaps we should be considering increasing the number of specialist investigators and their budgets, rather than giving the police wider powers than they already have.

  The Brigadier 16:19 12 Jun 2008

What about the rights of those effected by the actions of suspects who cause death etc through bombings & murdering innocent people.

42 days is their because due to human rights etc you cant just use old fasion methods to get the info you want!

  johndrew 16:25 12 Jun 2008

Given that evidence used to charge those who have been taken to court so far has been available within the first 14 days, I see little need to extend to 42 - this especially as it is already possible to go beyond this period.

I believe David Davies reasons for creating this situation are deeper than the current 42 day business. In the statement he made he referred to the erosion of civil liberties across the whole spectrum of our way of life. I think he feels it necessary to make a point and is brave enough to make it this way to prove the position of Government wrong on more than one count.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 hack: How secure is your Wi-Fi?

Add Depth Of Field to a photo using Tilt Shift Blur in Photoshop

iPhone tips & tricks

Comment afficher des fichiers cachés sur Mac ?