It is my understanding that if someone is arrested and detained for a long time and then ultimately not charged that they then have a case for compensation. I see no reason why this would not also be applicable for someone detained under the terrorism act.

As I've detailed elsewhere this price wasn't paid by somebody "who irritated the ruling party". Indeed, (a) they didn't pay the price you mention, (b) I would suggest that it was a single member of the police they irritated, rather than the "ruling party", (c) they are now a managing person withint the "ruling party".

I would suggest that if the detained and released person did have their house reposessed simply because of their detention they would then have a strong case for complaint to the FSA, because their mortgage provider should have taken that into consideration when reviewing their case.

Also, it is my understanding that one can't be sacked for being arrested, one has to be found guilty to get fired.