Ten o'clock news story
Oct. 9th, 2007 10:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alitalfThere was a story on the news tonight about another move to extend the time that terrorist suspects can be held without charge beyond 28 days.
I've read about a few apparently inappropriate cases of people arrested under the prevention of terrorism act in recent years. The one that worries me most is that the old man who shouted "Rubbish" in response to something in a speech at the Labour Party conference, a year or two ago, was arrested under the prevention of terrorism act after he had been thrown out, apparently with more force than actually necessary, by the bouncers.
Does the possible extension of detention without charge, particularly with this politcal context, worry anyone else?
I've read about a few apparently inappropriate cases of people arrested under the prevention of terrorism act in recent years. The one that worries me most is that the old man who shouted "Rubbish" in response to something in a speech at the Labour Party conference, a year or two ago, was arrested under the prevention of terrorism act after he had been thrown out, apparently with more force than actually necessary, by the bouncers.
Does the possible extension of detention without charge, particularly with this politcal context, worry anyone else?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-09 10:06 pm (UTC)I do understand that in some criminal cases (terrorism, fraud, whatever) the usual terms simply aren't enough. But I also believe that we have magistrates and judges who are perfectly competant (or if not, why not?) in reviewing such cases, so that the police have enough time to gather evidence.