Posted Monday 28th April 2008 09:01 GMT
As much as we all bitch and moan about the nanny state and the intrusion into our private lives that we have in blighty, at least we are allowed to moan.....
Saudi arabia is a 15th century country getting fat of 21st century oil prices. Once that has gone, nobody will go near there again.
Posted Monday 28th April 2008 09:01 GMT
before we begin to see this sort of thing here?
Given gov.uk's reticence/resistance to investigating the Phorm/BT 'tests', and the apprent arise of new censorship, the rest of the 'dissenting masses' must be in their sights.
As someone commented on the censorship (extreme porn) issue;
"When did I fall asleep and wake up in China?"
In a couple of years, mate!
Posted Monday 28th April 2008 14:07 GMT
Thank heavens we don't have a justice system that allows people to be locked up for weeks on end without charge.
Oh, wait...
Posted Monday 28th April 2008 15:29 GMT
This is EXACTLY the scenario we can expect in the UK if they can hold "suspects" for more than a few days without charging them. They're already up to 30 days and still trying to push for 42.
There are two procedures we can introduce to control this behaviour. First, it is foolish to deny that there are occasions when we will have to detain suspects indefinitely for a variety of reasons, some of which we can't even foresee. However, should that EVER be the case, we must not let politicians, police or judges be empowered to make decisions which restrict the liberty of the citizen without due process. Such powers should only be exercised by We The People in the form of a duly sworn Jury.
Second, when it emerges, as it did in the this case, that no charges are to be laid, the suspect must be compensated for loss and injury and the State must be penalised. Where appropriate, decision makers should be prosecuted or at least fired and the State should pay a substantial fine (£1million plus) in the form of a charitable donation to one of the recognised organisations (Liberty, ACLU etc) who make it their business to defend victims in this situation.
What this would achieve is a strong disincentive for the State to practice licensed terrorism against its own citizens while still permitting unrestricted detention when a Jury has been properly convinced that it genuinely is necessary.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 09:14 GMT
They are such a cheeky bunch of jokers!
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 09:14 GMT
used to be one called Habeus Corpus
AndyD 8-)#
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 09:14 GMT
No mate, it's a family firm, wholly owned by the Sauds, and all the citizens are mere employees. Their "legal" system (they don't have "justice") is exactly what the boss decrees it to be, and their laws are the rules the boss makes up.
And like all tough choices, we don't HAVE to buy their oil, but we're scared of the consequences.
Posted Tuesday 29th April 2008 09:24 GMT
I'm all in favour of assassination.
If the United States of Americans can get away with it, why not introduce it here too? They control out puppets after all. What harm can it do?
Back to the article
