Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
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This discussion has been archived.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 More

UK Introduces Warrantless Detention

Comments Filter:

  • Time for a new name (Score:5, Funny)

    by russotto ( 537200 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @12:07AM (#45826133) Journal

    Let's just call the place Airstrip One and be done with it.

    • ...Brazil and Argentina will keep the Malvinas. UK is moving to 2nd and 3rd world status at warp speed and could not repeat the performance of the 80s. Glad I am not a Falklander, they are just SOL.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by no_go ( 96797 )

        Brazil ?!?!
        I believe Brazil hasn't any claim over the Falklands/Malvinas (although they support Argentina's claim)

    • Mocking security measures, names of security-related installations, the Ministry of Defense, or otherwise, is now a prohibited activity. We know where you are. Please report for detention immediately. Bring all of your electronic devices.

  • Vendetta (Score:1, Insightful)

    by holophrastic ( 221104 )

    Guy Fawkes

  • Article needs fixing (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    s/introduce/impose/g

  • FUCK YOU SLASHDOT (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @12:18AM (#45826187)

    THIS NEW DESIGN IS DOG SHIT

  • Failure to pick up dog waste (Score:5, Funny)

    by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @12:22AM (#45826219)

    I can understand the part about penalizing failure to pick up dog waste. No sense arming the inevitable protesters gratuitously.

  • confusion? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by snakeplissken ( 559127 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @12:31AM (#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

    snake

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by holostarr ( 2709675 )
      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: (Score:2)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        That close to a base, and digging and other things prohibited, who's to say someone didn't make something nefarious that looked like poo? Though, for consistency's sake, all littering, including failure to pick up poo, should be treated in a similar manner.
        • Does that mean that I can digg a hole somewhere in the streets of London (not near a base) and the police can not arrest me?

        • 'That close'?
          I skimmed the article and nowhere does it say how big this area would be.
          If it is supposed to counter listening in with spy antennas and drones, then it must be quite big.

          • If it is supposed to counter listening in with spy antennas and drones, then it must be quite big.

            It is designed to prevent the establishement of camps by protesters, like the one which appeared at Greenham Common when the cruise missiles were based there. The camps can become distinctly unsanitary.

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

        by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @02:22AM (#45826675)

        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!

        In the UK being arrested doesn't automatically get you a criminal record and employers don't check if you've ever been arrested before hiring you. Its not, yet, part of the USA.

        • Perhaps you missed the bit where Tony Blair decreed that all offences are arrestable. Any arrest gets you a criminal record (as does a caution, Section 27 dispersal notice, etc.) but there is still discretion as to whether you do get arrested for something minor due to the paperwork involved...

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

            by pr100 ( 653298 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @05:44AM (#45827325)

            There might be a record of your arrest, but that's not what is normally understood by a criminal record, which is a list of the offences of which you've been convicted or accepted a caution in respect of.

            • The distinction doesn't matter as much now in the age of internet and routine background investigations. I got arrested on a class one misdemeanor charge years ago. Since its not a felony, even had I been convicted I wouldn't have had to put it on job applications. I was completely innocent, and the charges were dropped. But it still turns up and I still have to explain it to employers when I try to change jobs. As far as I know it hasn't hurt me, but I still find it a bit worrisome that the whole "expu

          • Any arrest gets you a criminal record (as does a caution, Section 27 dispersal notice, etc.) ....

            No, it does not. You simply have no idea what you are talking about.

            You only get a criminal record in the UK if you are found guilty of a criminal offence in court or if you accept (ie - admit guilt) a police caution. A simple arrest where you are released without charge or where you are given something like a dispersal notice or even where you are arrested, charged, but the charges are dropped before you go to court does not entail any sort of criminal record at all. Arrests such as these do not cause you

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Smauler ( 915644 )

              I'm afraid you're wrong. Police do keep records of arrests, and they can be revealed in enhanced CRB checks.

              From here [justanswer.com] : "the fact that a person has been arrested is very likely to be stored on the person's police record on the Police National Computer. [...] if this is an Enhanced [CRB] check, there is an option for the police to include any other relevant information about the person that is stored on the PNC and that is considered relevant for the application. So if the police believe that the reason for

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          In the UK being arrested doesn't automatically get you a criminal record..

          Though it does get your DNA and fingerprints into the system, and whilst your arrest may not appear in one set of results, rest assured, the fact that you've been arrested will be in their intelligence files forever.

          Fun fact#45223, the DNA database had 5 million records in 2009, that was for a population of 62 million people or so, so 8% of the (then) UK populace was directly 'on-file'.

          ..and employers don't check if you've ever been arrested before hiring you.

          Ah, I take it then you've not spotted the increase in employers 'gaming' the system by putting people through unjustified

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Shimbo ( 100005 )

        But why make not picking up after your dog an arrestable offence anyway?

        The concept no longer exists in English law, all offences are arrestable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestable_offence [wikipedia.org]

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

      by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:26AM (#45826483) 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.

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

        by cold fjord ( 826450 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @02:56AM (#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 [nato.int]

        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 [wikipedia.org]

        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.

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

          by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @03:11AM (#45826783) Journal
          Protesting on public land outside a fence is very legal freedom of expression Cold. To "interfere" you have to move beyond the fence.

          • Protesters have moved beyond the fence on more than one occasion at various bases.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AHuxley ( 892839 )
              The new laws are for areas outside the bases cold. The laws covering UK and US/UK joint bases/sites are well established.

              • Were. They seem to be changing. ;)

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AHuxley ( 892839 )
                  Yes much fun will result: good antiwar publicity, law reform and public test cases, more protests to test legality of the laws and amazing HD video footage of police trying to enforce 'laws' on one person in public. More fun occurs if police arrest a lawyer, member of the press, a politician or wealthy protester who can afford a good legal team :)

                  • I think we could agree that everybody would benefit by the arrest of a few 'posh' protesters, including the 'posh' protesters.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by fatphil ( 181876 )
            I doubt it, it's probably blocking a public thoroughfare, and quite likely a breach of the peace. "Public" doesn't mean "anyone can do anything here".

            However, it's time for someone to resurrect Mark Thomas. The kinds of stunts he used to pull were always fun. (This included deliberately dressing up and loitering suspiciously (including obligatory newspapers with cut-out slivers to peek through), but always hanging around on groups of only 3, no more.)

        • Ah, spreading your bullshit again.

          You conviniently left out the fact that USSR had officially pledged "no first use" of nuclear weaponry, while NATO in fact still insists on a preemptive first strike option.

          • Ah, spreading your bullshit again.

            You conviniently left out the fact that USSR had officially pledged "no first use" of nuclear weaponry, while NATO in fact still insists on a preemptive first strike option.

            Russia simply had less need to use nuclear weapons in a first strike capability as for most of the cold war they had huge tank armadas that could roll over most of Europe. Faced with this the US pretty quickly decided that they should counter any conventional invasion of Europe by tanks with a nuclear strike on Moscow. This was pretty much their only option if they wanted a serious deterrent as they had no where near enough tanks in Europe to hope to stand up to the red army after the second world war.

            The U

            • Counter is one thing. Nuclear first strike - and this is exactly what I am talking about - is a whole different matter.

              T-34, even the newer T-34/85, was outdated even in the first years of the cold war. In fact, if the Soviet industry was not in such a sorry state, it would have been replaced by T-44 by 1944. M26 Pershing was a match for both, though. The crap tank you mention (M24 Chaffee) was a light tank, PT-76 would be comparable, not the almost twice as heavy T-34.

    • actually, the police have a warrant that permits them to arrest for arrestable offences. the police seldom don't know what is and isn't an arrestable offence though as I can attest. I was once "arrested" until I explained to the officer that my "crime" wasn't actually an arrestable offence and they could only arrest me during the commision of the crime or if it was likely to recur (which it wasn't), so they would need a proper warrant to arrest me. the matter was dropped.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Yes Titus thats the fun part thats going to be raised by the random nature of laws like this without the legal equality a fence provides.
        In front of the fence you have the full protection UK law and can hold up a sign, walk or have a peace badge on a and conduct an interview without fear of police arrest.
        To be randomly chosen for much stricter enforcement will provide interesting UK/EU test cases.

      • Was that a while ago? I only ask as *all* offences are arrestable nowadays.

        • breach of the peace is *NOT* and never has been an arrestable offence if it is neither on going or likely to recur. So you can stop yourself from being arrested if you shut up when the police arrive ;-)

          • The likelihood of recurrence is at the discretion of the police. Guess what they'll go for if you don't scarper when ordered even if you aren't doing anything wrong (and technically don't have to).

    • I suspect this is needed to allow the military to detain suspected offenders. Often there's a jurisdictional issue here. You don't want to give the civilian police unrestricted access to a secure military facility, and a soldier is quite capable of restraining and bringing in a trespasser.

      • I suspect this is needed to allow the military to detain suspected offenders. Often there's a jurisdictional issue here. You don't want to give the civilian police unrestricted access to a secure military facility, and a soldier is quite capable of restraining and bringing in a trespasser.

        "restraining and bringing in" is the literal definition of "arrest".

        Actually, most soldiers are trained with intent to kill and destroy, or at best herd using threat of deadly force. You need MPs if you want to simply and safely arrest un-cooperative people. They have not only the training, but the necessary equipment to do so.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by C0R1D4N ( 970153 )
      I think this is a great opportunity for some civil disobedience. All you brits should gather your dogs and head to the controlled zone.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @12:43AM (#45826313)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Complicated laws mean more criminals, if that's the kind of thing you want.

      • Re:Criteria too complicated (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @01:32AM (#45826511) Homepage Journal

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

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

        • Well, that's a statistic you "never" see flogged on Slashdot.

          One notable difference between the US and some of the disreputable states used for comparison (Soviet Union, Communist China) is the differing nature of the offenses. People held in American prisons are there for recognizable criminal offenses, not political offenses. You may find it disagreeable that low level drug use in the US is criminalized, but that is certainly a different question than throwing someone into the gulag for making a fat jok

          • Re:Criteria too complicated (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mha ( 1305 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @04:10AM (#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.

            • People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Anonymous Coward

                People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

                Ah, but most of the audience here knows where he is talking about, and that's the point.

                I still know people who don't know Beijing is Peking, or that Bombay doesn't exist anymore (where the feck is Mumbai?)

              • People who have actually been to Ukraine don't call it the Ukraine...

                Well, it's kind of hard to when your language doesn't include a definite article.

          • Re:Criteria too complicated (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @06:26AM (#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.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

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

            I can turn that argument upside down: This means that the US is ahead in the statistic even despite that other more oppressive countries cheat and inflate their numbers by locking up people for political reasons. This makes it more damning, not less.

            Now, you might be of the opinion that locking up criminals for longer time and due to smaller deeds than the rest of the world does is a good thing, but then you should just say so instead of diverting the discussion into comparision against regimes that are wor

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by fyngyrz ( 762201 )

            You may find it disagreeable that low level drug use in the US is criminalized

            I don't just find it disagreeable. I find it unjust, stupid and shortsighted. Having said that, it's exactly what I expect of our current government.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Some would argue those imprisoned, deserve to be imprisoned. The US system is the envy of many.

          And no, I'm not american.

          • Re:Criteria too complicated (Score:4, Insightful)

            by hawkinspeter ( 831501 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @03:41AM (#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.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Yeah, I'm sure many right wing leaders get a half stiffy thinking about how many blacks are in american jails..

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            And some would argue that punishment shouldn't be about what people "deserve", it should be about what's in the best interests of society. People say they want the legal system to provide justice, but what they really want is vengeance. Mostly vengeance against people they don't know and will never meet.

        • While it's a pretty damning statistic in comparison to other first-world countries, it's worth remembering that a lot of other countries have lower incarceration rates because they flog or execute people for more minor crimes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Yes that will allow what was police ~Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) to seek out the most photogenic, charismatic, succinct protesters and remove them legally before the media can get close to a protest.
        No more standing at the fence during a long interview. Could the final UK vision be UK an East German style restricted zone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border#1952.E2.80.9367:_the_.22Special_Regime.22 [wikipedia.org] with special permit for locals to live or work inside?

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

      Trespass is not genrally a criminal offense in the UK. I believe that there is an offense of "mass trespass" and there are bylaws that may make trespass a criminal offense in specific places (for example, military bases and railway lines).

      Or perhaps I just heard a "whooshing" sound?

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

        Trespass is not genrally a criminal offense in the UK. I believe that there is an offense of "mass trespass" and there are bylaws that may make trespass a criminal offense in specific places (for example, military bases and railway lines).

        Or perhaps I just heard a "whooshing" sound?

        Just be careful around the 100-Acre Wood. Old "Trespassers Will" is sensitive about such things. He may set Tigger on you.

        It's true, however, that the UK precepts that permit people to tramp across other people's property are completely alien to the hyper-possessive US concepts on such matters.

  • The new layout... WHAT THE FUCK?! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    :(

  • Think about what this actually means. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 31, 2013 @06:29AM (#45827515)

    Police have the powers to arrest for any offence. Although legally symbolic - i.e. the police don't legally need to be carrying one to carry out their duties - force procedure represents this power by constables in the UK being required to carry and show their warrant card.

    The meaning here of creating "warrantless offences" is that people without a warrant card, i.e. SOLDIERS, are given the power to arrest CIVILIANS on public land close to a military base.

    Is that clear enough for you? A soldier bored with watching you protest can just put you in a headlock and call the police.

  • After the recent persecution/attempted then failed cull, stealth badgers equipped with low-light video systems in their backpacks will be infiltrating the controlled areas to report on suspicious police activity. They are quietly confident, being as how they can't be arrested for shitting in the controlled area, since they aren't dogs.

  • We hear all the time that freedom is not free it must be paid for periodically. Well, I think the western tradition of freedom is under attack and it is time that the citizens of the USA and the UK band agains their governments becoming like the repressive governments of Hitler and Stallen that they supposidly weren't. My only hope is that we have not built up so much "freedom debt" that we must pay for it with violen revolution.

    Does anyone have a viable plan to stop this wholesale nonsense?

  • From the article:

    "The MoD insisted it is merely bringing up to date a disparate set of by-laws which were first introduced in 1892, and seeking to bring about a “layered” set of legislation which will increase public access to some military land."

    Draconian? LOL! I can't believe they let people in there at all. Furthermore, most of the rules seem to come from the groundskeepers, not spies.

    In the U.S. they put up fences and shoot people who go inside.

  • I think they are more afraid of public protests tarnishing the image of America over seas. (like that is what would cause it) more so than terrorists. What sort of terrorist attacks a military base? They aren't unprotected or civilian and becomes a form of military attack.

  • So, that's how it all begun... Drones going on strike.

    And we all know how it well end, right?

    The Matrix, taht's it.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close