Brown defied in Britain over his desire to have 28->42 days held without charge.

[StageLeft]

As you may know, in England you can be held without charge for 28 days. Brown wanted it moved to 42 days (perfect case of slippery slope). He was rejected by about 3/4 of the votes. Link

This is great, I think the 28 days is a travesty, but at least this is stopped for now.

 

[Slick5150]

And based on the movie I saw, very bad things can happen in england in as few as 28 Days Later.

In all seriousness though, yes, I agree with you that that's a good vote and a good rebuke of expanded government powers. If you think someone's committed a crime, then great, charge him with it and show your evidence.

 

[CanOWorms]

Brown is a peasant, not the Queen. Only the Queen should have the privilege of detaining people indefinitely. It is her God-Given right.

 

[Cellulose]

:roll: @ CanOWorms

By the way, what's the limit in the USA?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Cellulose
:roll: @ CanOWorms

By the way, what's the limit in the USA?

Indefinitely at Gitmo.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Cellulose
:roll: @ CanOWorms

By the way, what's the limit in the USA?

Unless you're in Gitmo, it looks like in the US it's 48 hours.

 

[techs]

Hey, the news story says it was defeated by the House of Lords? I thought the House of Lords sole power was to like delay a law by three days or some such?

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: techs
Hey, the news story says it was defeated by the House of Lords? I thought the House of Lords sole power was to like delay a law by three days or some such?

No, they can delay it for quite a bit longer than that (how long depends on the bill but I think the maximum is one year), it also means that the Commons will have to vote again, and last time the government nearly lost.
Anyway, the important thing here is not so much the delay. The reason why the government should be a bit worried is that some of the lords that have been very vocal about their opposition to the bill were appointed to the House of Lords precisely because they know a thing of two about the subject in question. Two examples are Lord Goldsmith and Baroness Manningham-Buller. Their names might sound like something out of a fantasy novel but Goldsmith happens to be a former labour attorney general of England and Wales (he resigned last year) and the baroness is a former head of MI5.

Hence, it is very possible that the lords might be able to influence some of the members of the Commons, meaning there is a real chance that the government will lose the next time the bill is put to the vote.