Forgot your password?
United Kingdom

UK Introduces Warrantless Detention 153

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the cameras-are-for-hippies dept.
An anonymous reader writes with news that the UK is introducing new laws tightening security around military bases, quoting the article "The Ministry of Defense is set to introduce "draconian" new powers to tighten security and limit access to US airbases in Britain implicated in mass surveillance and drone strikes, The Independent can reveal. ... Among the 20 activities to be banned within the controlled area are camping 'in tents, caravans, trees or otherwise,' digging, engaging in 'any trade or business' or grazing any animal. Also among the offenses, which can result in an individual being 'taken into custody without warrant,' is a failure to pick up dog waste or causing damage to 'any crops, turfs, plants, roots or trees'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Introduces Warrantless Detention

Comments Filter:
  • Vendetta (Score:1, Insightful)

    by holophrastic (221104) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:08AM (#45826147)

    Guy Fawkes

  • by DigiShaman (671371) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:43AM (#45826313) Homepage

    Just post a sign that says "No Trespassing" and be done with it.

  • Re:confusion? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by holostarr (2709675) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:47AM (#45826327)
    But why make not picking up after your dog an arrestable offence anyway? To me it would be reasonable if the penalty was a fine rather than a criminal record!
  • Re:confusion? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AHuxley (892839) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @02:26AM (#45826483) Homepage Journal
    Up until this point you had the option to go to the fence and protest any new war, weapons system, double tap drone strikes, vast domestic surveillance operations...
    This would make an images, footage or interviews from the protest event very powerful.
    Think back to the UK and EU around the Pershing 2 nuclear missile. The optics of the protests was great for the press.
    A collection of people from a cross section of society at a base, next to the fence with surveillance hardware or weapons systems in the same frame.
    The new controlled area might allow for interviews with lanes, wooded areas, hills, roads or other nondescript buildings in the background.
    The protected area laws will basically herd protesters into vast "free speech zones" well away from the desired visual political statement.
    The court challenges will also be interesting. It is not base land, so the UK will have to allow people to walk dogs, protest on land near the base or fully restrict all use.
    The UK gov will have to expand warning signs, fences - an expensive land grab to widen the legal areas under direct 'base' control.
    If not the UK laws become legally arbitrary - if you look local or are known to be local you can walk a dog? If you don't look local or are known to be a protester your freedom of movement is gone?
    Why not just buy the land and move out the fences? Very legal and very simple.
  • by Adult film producer (866485) <> on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @02:30AM (#45826501)
    Yep.. it is dog shit, it's really bad. I wanted to mod your comment up but apparently I don't have any now :(
  • by Adult film producer (866485) <> on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @02:34AM (#45826519)
    I get the point your making.. and if slashdot sticks with the the "beta" format I would rather spend my time on reddit. The reddit format is closer to my heart than what I'm seeing on the /. beta
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @02:46AM (#45826567)

    s/Ministry of Defense/Ministry of Truth/g

  • Re:confusion? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AHuxley (892839) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:11AM (#45826783) Homepage Journal
    Protesting on public land outside a fence is very legal freedom of expression Cold. To "interfere" you have to move beyond the fence.
  • by hawkinspeter (831501) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:41AM (#45826925)
    Well that would seem to imply that the US must be one of the safest places in the world with such a tight grip on crime.
  • by mha (1305) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:10AM (#45827037) Homepage

    Do you have any numbers about "political" prisoners? It doesn't sounds like you actually *know* anything, except for some media headlines? Knowing Russia just a little (yes I also speak some Russian and have been there a few times, and in the Ukraine) I doubt there's any significant political movement behind bars. You have a WISISTI (What I See Is What There Is) perception - of course your news media don't report on "normal" cases in Russian, all they ever do (understandable and that's okay) is report a few very high profile (well, only that reporting makes them so) cases. Pussy? Khodorkovsky? Anyone else? Not to mention that Khodorkovsky never deserved all that attention.

    And don't think I want to defend Russia, it's a cold, hard country (in so more than just nature), but come up with intelligent criticism and not just some random opinion based on very little, no, more like no knowledge except a small number of headlines. Because it is such a f...-up tough country with severe poverty you can expect there to be crime, quite a bit of crime, with all those I-have-nothing-to-loose people. Better criticism would be the wealth distribution that contributes to crime. There isn't a big political movement to imprison ASAIK.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @07:26AM (#45827509) Homepage Journal

    People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses.

    "Criminal" offenses like smoking a joint. Most US prisoners are there for drugs. I'd call a drug arrest political.

"Just Say No." - Nancy Reagan "No." - Ronald Reagan