[garinda]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Nothing odd about that.

It is our fundamental right to face our accuser and the evidence so that we can defend ourselves BEFORE being incarcerated for more than 48 hours.

Most people have come to accept 28 days because it is already in place and object to the extension. It used to be 14 days and before that 48 hours, I think it was, before the arrested person is either charged or released. However there has always been provision to extend the time on application to a magistrate. But the arresting officer had to have some evidence of a crime being committed or likely to be committed or the alleged criminal was likely to abscond before the case comes up before a lawful court, to gain a successful extension.

Today a person can be arrested on suspicion alone and then the police have 28 days to search for evidence by searching the suspect’s house for incriminating evidence. And now they want 42 days. It was originally 56 days but a compromise was reached.

The 14/28/42 days law was brought in to aid in counter terrorism and the fear is that it will progress to other ‘normal’ crimes. All it’s done is turn the UK into a small facsimile of Guantanamo Bay. Yet the government objected to Guantanamo Bay.

Today the terrorist – tomorrow the standard criminal – the day after anyone.

Do we want a “Judge Dredd” society where on the spot fines are dished out by the police. Oh! We already have one with on the spot fines and fixed penalty notices.

Whatever happened to the innocent until proven to be guilty and being tried by our peers so that we defend ourselves?

I think everyone must agree that because of the massive leap forward in technology since the 28 day holding time was brought in, new technology that has and is currently being used by terrorist cells to plan attacks on our civil liberties, there is definitely a case that more time 'might' be needed to gather evidence, which may prevent any more attacks in the future.