Uploaded on Apr 5, 2008
Appropriately the proposals to allow people to be held without charge for 42 days is discussed in parliament on April fools day, luckily someone is there to point out just how foolish this proposal is.
It is evident from past experience that holding people in custody for much shorter periods of time can lead to false confession and wrongful imprisonment.
So why does the debate continue?
An exerpt from "The Woolwich and Guildford pub-bomb cases" by Bob Woffinden in his 1987 book Miscarriages of Justice
"Anti-Irish hysteria, albeit most
prominent in Birmingham, flared up
across the nation, and quickly made
itself felt in parliament. The Home
Secretary introduced the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
within a week of the bombings in what,
retrospectively, seems like indecent
haste. The Bill made membership of and
support for the IRA an offence. It also
introduced exclusion orders which gave
the British government powers to restrict
the movements of designated citizens
within its own borders. Additionally, the
police were empowered to arrest
without warrant anyone they
reasonably suspected of being
concerned in terrorism, but against
whom they had not assembled
sufficient evidence in regard to a
specific offence. Police could detain
someone arrested under this provision
for forty-eight hours; but the Home
Secretary could permit an extension of
the detention for a further five days -- so
that the bill encroached upon the
traditional liberty of habeas corpus.
The Prevention of Terrorism Act, as it
became, went through all its stages in
the Commons in twenty hours, and
passed unamended through the Lords
in just three minutes."
The Guildford four :- http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/guil...
Standard YouTube License