British Expatriate Network

The proposed changes would mean the home secretary could order British citizens to be held under house arrest without putting them on trial.

http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4207295.stm


does anyone else find this in the least bit disturbing?

Sweet - sort of Guantanamo Bay in your own front room.

Kind of like in jail without bail in your own house. -?

Except not quite as sunny.

Nanny does know best as we all know. Which is why presently Nanny is trying to ban those crap grab-a-teddybear machines in game-arcades because they promote gambling to children. The kids will still be allowed into the arcade tho. And this at a time when the Department of Culture, Media and Sport is arguing for casino's in Britain.

there alread yare casino's in Britain, but you have to join, and then wait 24 hrs before you can gamble.

Not seen this one Gavin - got a link?
anyway I think that the issue of house arrest is a little more serious than the 'nanny state' rhetoric you use.

Of course Britain already has such a scheme, but within the framework of due process. The problem with Clarke's proposals is that they remain outside that framework.

People will be detained or subect to other sanctions based on secret evidence from dubious sources (the sort of people who assured us of the existance of WMD in Iraq mostly) for indeterminate periods. Now your own home is almost certainly more attractive than the inside of Belmarsh (which I know well) - but a gilded cage is still a cage.

In practice it is unlikely that Clarke intends to use the proposed legislation against British citizens - the only reason this clause exists is because the Lords pointed out that discriminating on grounds of nationality or immigration status breachs UK law. However that is not to say it couldn't be used in the future - and given MI5 and MI6's history of spying on politicians it doesn't like and Special Branch's ongoing unlawful attacks on groups such as anarchists, anti-globalization campaigners and anti-monarchists - and its history of utilizing anti-terror provisions such as the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act against political dissidents; young black men and even school kids! - I'd say people in Britain have every reason to be concerned about this legislation.

Nanny State misses the mark - it almost makes it sound cuddly :wink:

This is were I disagree with Rob S.

I like the idea myself, just think of the money being saved. I wonder who picks up the cost of their cable bill, food etc.

But logic having its way, if they were real terrorists, don't you think they will escape ASAP. I mean they are not going to hang around lol

Well this is what I was thinking. If I couldn't go to work because of House Arrest, are the Gubberment going to pick up the tab for mortgage, electricity, Homes and Garden subscription etc?

With Sky tv, Xbox, beer, delivery pizza and Indian food, and the odd dial-prossie I don't see what's the problem. Especially in winter.

Sorry. Perhaps i didn't make my point clearly. I don't have a problem with 'house arrest' within the normal framework of due procees - i.e. where someone has been tried and convicted of a crime. Indeed I positive advocate such a policy as it is without doubt much cheaper than keeping low risk offenders in jail. Such schemes exist in Britain already and elsewhere in Europe. Ususally they provide for people to go to work at a fixed location, by way of a specified route for specified hours.

The problem with the new proposals is that there will be no evidence, no trial, no opportunity to challenge witnesses or defend against allegations. As such is is totally outside currently accepted legal norms and almost certainly outside UK law. As some on this board will know, 'dentention' does not mean you have to be locked in a cell. If a Police officer holds you on the street without lawful reason that can be false imprisonment. Indeed they don't even need to hold you - just give you the reasonable impression that you may not leave.

In London the Police have been successfully sued for refusing to allow someone to get of a bus with any lawful authority.

Here the Government seeks to create a power whereby people can be confined to there homes or electronically tagged without being given any lawful reason. In my experience, such legislation starts out as being intended for use against terrorists and serious criminals but usually gets used to deal with the politically unacceptable and racial minorities. My experience of course being as the one who successfully represented such persons :wink:

House arrest with no phone, no computer, no communication with the outside world. Phone tapped even for check in calls where you have so many rings to answer it or they come thru your door in full regalia. Not all it's cracked up to be unless you have a bloody good library in situ.

Phwoar, must be worth a try :wink: