Police state Britain: Tory MP Damian Green's crime was to reveal truths Labour didn't want you to

reply to post by jakyll


stumason was very true with his words, if you do not understand the significance of 1642 then there is no point proclaiming your rights.

Without a democratic and independent Parliament, there is no pointing championing our rights - we wouldn't have any.

If the government didn't have rules/laws that allowed the rights of the common people to be taken away in the first place,then this kind of thing would not have happened to one of their own.

You are mixing the executive with Parliament. Parliament did not restrict our rights, the executive branch of government did.

reply to post by CaptainCaveMan


Er, no. Bail means he has been released to come back at a later date. He doesn't necessarily face any charges.

Why ask a question, then argue when told the answer?

EDIT: I see you have "edited" your answer now so as to not look like a dipstick!

Why is it "insane"?

[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan

No, Bail means he is being charged with something, and will have to appear before a court.
There is charges pending against this man.
What are they?

There's different kinds of bail.

Police bail doesn't need the suspect to have been charged with anything, it's just a 'bond' to return to the police at a later date for further questioning or charging&c.

Police to Court means charges have been already made and will be then released on bail after the preliminary court appearance.

Court bail is a kind of extension of Police to Court for on-going investigations &c.

Adjusts pencil skirt and files nails.

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan
They don't do that here.

*coughs*

They do because we wrote your legal system

reply to post by infinite


Seems in the US it is slightly different. Whilst their legal system is based upon English Law, there are differences, bail being one of them.

But having said that, just because the US doesn't do it that way, why should we be the same? I find cavemans comments somewhat arrogant, to be honest.

[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by infinite

 

Seems in the US it is slightly different. Whilst their legal system is based upon English Law, there are differences, bail being one of them.

But having said that, just because the US doesn't do it that way, why should we be the same? I find cavemans comments somewhat arrogant, to be honest.

[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

Isn't Captain Caveman poster an Australian?

infinite

stumason was very true with his words, if you do not understand the significance of 1642 then there is no point proclaiming your rights.

Er,do you have trouble with your eyes?
I said that i know my history.I even know what caused the events of 1642 and the people involved.

You are mixing the executive with Parliament. Parliament did not restrict our rights, the executive branch of government did.

Would this be the same government that is trying to take this away....

Without a democratic and independent Parliament, there is no pointing championing our rights - we wouldn't have any.

stumason

Jakyll, what "rights" do you think you have lost?

I guess you don't think its important that police powers have been extended to detain suspects after arrest for up to 28 days,or that there are now Control Orders that can be used against an individual.That anyone arrested can have DNA samples taken.



[edit on 29-11-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by Merriman Weir


All the same....damned colonials

But yes, it would appear he is from Oz.

Originally posted by jakyll
I guess you don't think its important that police powers have been extended to detain suspects after arrest for up to 28 days,or that there are now Control Orders that can be used against an individual.That anyone arrested can have DNA samples taken.

The control orders and extended detention are used in counter-terrorism and unless you were involved in terrorism, they wouldn't affect you. The extended detention needs Judicial approval, if I am not mistaken, so if you were being held unjustly you would be released.

The DNA thing, if your not convicted then the sample will be destroyed. If your are convicted, then serves you right for committing a crime.

Besides, those laws didn't remove any rights. I asked you to name specifically what "rights" you think you have lost.

The operative word being "think"....

Many people don't even know what rights they have and will bitch when they perceive to have lost some, not realising they never had them in the first place to lose....

[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by infinite

 

Seems in the US it is slightly different. Whilst their legal system is based upon English Law, there are differences, bail being one of them.

But having said that, just because the US doesn't do it that way, why should we be the same? I find cavemans comments somewhat arrogant, to be honest.

[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

What is wrong with you?
What is your major malfunction?
Im a British citizen, and an Australian citizen.
The laws regarding Bail, are different here.
Go and look it up.They were changed in 1977.
That is why I found it weird, for someone to be bailed and not be charged with anything.
I will not waste another sentence, on someone with issues.

reply to post by CaptainCaveMan


God, you're slow.

We dealt with your Ozziness earlier. Sorry for the confusion, but it is usually Americans who come on and spout "thats not how we do it here" nonsense.

I'm the one with a malfunction, when it would seem you have Random Comma Insertion Disease?



Now, back to the subject....


[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

would one of you mind spelling this out for a poor yank? If you were to speculate possible scenarios this would cause, based on the current facts. I would star you

I read:

"The English Civil War (1642-1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians and Royalists. The first (1642–1646) and second (1648–1649) civil wars pitted the supporters of King Charles I against the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third war (1649–1651) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The Civil War ended with the Parliamentary victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651.

The Civil War led to the trial and execution of Charles I, the exile of his son, Charles II, and replacement of English monarchy with first, the Commonwealth of England (1649–1653), and then with a Protectorate (1653–1659), under Oliver Cromwell's personal rule. The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England ended with the victors consolidating the established Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland. Constitutionally, the wars established the precedent that a British monarch cannot govern without Parliament's consent, although this concept was established only with the Glorious Revolution later in the century."

Taken from wiki

en.wikipedia.org...


But I don't see that as very viable in the present. maybe im wrong, thats why I ask

[edit on 29-11-2008 by whoshotJR]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by whoshotJR]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by whoshotJR]

reply to post by stumason

The control orders and extended detention are used in counter-terrorism and unless you were involved in terrorism, they wouldn't affect you.

They are also to be used against suspected terrorists.How many British men who were sent to Guantanamo Bay have now been found innocent?

The DNA thing, if your not convicted then the sample will be destroyed. If your are convicted, then serves you right for committing a crime.

Er,they're not destroyed.This is one of the biggest arguments against the taking of DNA samples.Innocent or guilty,all samples go onto the NDNAD,the UK’s National DNA Database.

Up to 500,000 people who have profiles on the database have not been convicted or cautioned for a crime. That number includes profiles of 100,000 children, the Liberty pressure group has revealed.

www.telegraph.co.uk... he-Ethics-Group.html

Besides, those laws didn't remove any rights. I asked you to name specifically what "rights" you think you have lost.

Yes they do.
And why tell you what i think when i can tell you what i know.

reply to post by whoshotJR


""I see all the birds are flown."

It is related, because in January 1642 the King tried to arrest Members of Parliament and the Speaker of the House refused to violate the sanctuary of Parliament.

That is what started the chain of events towards the Civil War.

"May it please your majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as this house is pleased to direct me whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this"

Jakyll, if you read the An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown (Bill of Rights 1689) then you will understand the government has not violated - or removed - any legislative rights.

Also, clauses 36, 38, 39, and 40 of the 1215 Magna Carta are still in legal practice too. The House of Lords voted down 42 days because it violated those clauses, commonly known as Habeas corpus.

Originally posted by jakyll
They are also to be used against suspected terrorists.How many British men who were sent to Guantanamo Bay have now been found innocent?

Which had fudge all to do with the British Government. What's your point?

Originally posted by jakyll
Er,they're not destroyed.This is one of the biggest arguments against the taking of DNA samples.Innocent or guilty,all samples go onto the NDNAD,the UK’s National DNA Database.

Oh well, it used to be the case they were destroyed. Just make sure you don't go on a raping binge, hey? Whats the big deal? And what rights have been infringed?

Originally posted by jakyll
Yes they do.
And why tell you what i think when i can tell you what i know.

What rights have been taken away? I'll ask for a third time as you are trying to avoid the question. If you're going to bitch about it, spit it out.

I think you don't want to say because you are not certain on what rights you had in the first place. You are just parroting what you've heard, aren't you?

I'll give you a clue. The detention Law could be seen as removing your right of Habeous Corpus, but seeing as it is subject to Judicial review pending ongoing investigations, it can be argued that it doesn't actually infringe this right.

That's not to say I approve of it, but I can see why they do it.

28 days is the maximum length of time you can be held, without charge. If the Police had nothing on you, then you would be released fairly quickly as the judge would order it, if you are held for that long the chances are that you had something to do with terrorism, so can't really whine about it.

That is the only right that is even challenged by the above examples you provided and even then, it is tenuous.

[edit on 29/11/08 by stumason]

Here in New Zealand based on British Parliament. The Police first have to get permission from the speaker of the house. We recently had a case of a MP being charge with Bribery charges. His arrest was 6 mths in the making.

The Prime Minister and The Home Secretary would have known about the arrest days before hand.

For the record, and to end confusion:

Constitutional rights and human rights are two separate entities - the Bill of Rights and Magna Carta restrict government power over the subject/citizen.

Human rights will give a legal requirement of the basic rights you as a person are entitled to - which have nothing to do with the state or partisan elements.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite


Also, your "Human Rights" can be removed by an Act of Parliament, so don't get all clingy over them, you'll look like Rita Chakribarti if you're not careful..

Your rights under English Common Law are inalienable and cannot be removed or infringed by an Act of Parliament.

I've got out of a few situations using my rights as an Englishman!

Originally posted by infinite

stumason was very true with his words, if you do not understand the significance of 1642 then there is no point proclaiming your rights.

Wasn't 1642 significant for the arrest of Sir Winston Churchill for planting gunpowder under St Paul's Cathedral to blow up the Pope?

reply to post by stumason

I think you don't want to say because you are not certain on what rights you had in the first place. You are just parroting what you've heard, aren't you?

Sorry for the delay in replying,just been preening my feathers.

Hmmm,what do i know....

I know that under the new laws police will not need to suspect that a crime has taken place and can use the power to gain information about “matters relevant” to terror investigations.

I know that if suspects fail to stop or refuse to answer questions,they could be charged with a criminal offense and fined up to £5,000.And i know that no general police power to stop and question has ever been introduced in mainland Britain except during wartime.

I know that my rights for privacy will be taken away if the police/government get their way concerning the monitoring of phone calls and emails.

I know that the counter-terrorism laws contain proposals that deny the due process rights of suspects (presumption of innocence,legal aid,a fair trial etc).

I know that we are the most monitored population in western Europe with 4.2 million CCTV cameras.Each one of us can be caught on camera up to 300 times a day,and there is no accountability or control over who uses or has access to the data collected from these cameras.