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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • confusion? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by snakeplissken (559127) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:31AM (#45826259)

    yes this is draconian but i don't think that 'taken into custody without warrant' means what i think the slashdot article implies it does. to me it means that these are now arrestable offences, obviously police can already arrest people without 'a warrant' otherwise no one could ever be arrested or detained on the street for any crime without a judge first being involved.

    officer: i saw you hit that woman
    scrote: fuck you
    officer: right sonny, just you wait here while i get a warrant so i can make you stay here,
    hey come back, i haven't got the warrant yet!...

    the problem here is that they shouldn't be arrestable offences not that police have the already existing power to arrest people


  • by fyngyrz (762201) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @02:32AM (#45826511) Homepage Journal

    The US has about 5% of the world's population. We also have about 25% of the world's prisoners. []

    Land of the incarcerated, home of the feeble. Britain is our staunchest ally. Perhaps they're looking to us for incarceration performance, eh?

  • Re:confusion? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cold fjord (826450) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @03:56AM (#45826749)

    It may be a shock to some that the purpose of military bases are not simply to provide optics for protesters. They have an actual function that the protesters often desire to interfere with.

    As to the Pershing 2 issue, that is a splendid example of the bankruptcy of the so called "peace movement." Where were the protests over the Soviet SS-20s that the Pershing missiles were brought in to counter? It was hardly proportionate.

    A short history of NATO - The Cold War revived []

    The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet deployment of SS-20 Saber ballistic missiles in Europe led to the suspension of détente. To counter the Soviet deployment, Allies made the “dual track” decision to deploy nuclear-capable Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles in Western Europe while continuing negotiations with the Soviets. The deployment was not scheduled to begin until 1983. In the meantime, the Allies hoped to achieve an arms control agreement that would eliminate the need for the weapons.

    Lacking the hoped-for agreement with the Soviets, NATO members suffered internal discord when deployment began in 1983. Following the ascent of Mikhail Gorbachev as Soviet Premier in 1985, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 1987, eliminating all nuclear and ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges. This is now regarded as an initial indication that the Cold War was coming to an end.

    Soviet influence on the peace movement []

    Russian GRU defector Stanislav Lunev said in his autobiography that "the GRU and the KGB helped to fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad," and that during the Vietnam War the USSR gave $1 billion to American anti-war movements, more than it gave to the VietCong.[19] Lunev described this as a "hugely successful campaign and well worth the cost".[19] According to Time magazine, a US State Department official estimated that the KGB may have spent $600 million on the peace offensive up to 1983, channeling funds through national Communist parties or the World Peace Council "to a host of new antiwar organizations that would, in many cases, reject the financial help if they knew the source."[13] Richard Felix Staar in his book Foreign Policies of the Soviet Union says that non-communist peace movements without overt ties to the USSR were "virtually controlled" by it. Lord Chalfont claimed that the Soviet Union was giving the European peace movement £100 million a year. The Federation of Conservative Students (FCS) alleged Soviet funding of CND.

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai