Wednesday 4 June 2008

A Question About Questioning

Why not allow questioning after charge? Then the matter of locking people up for obscenely long periods without charge simply would not arise.
Posted by at

17 comments:

  1. Anonymous4 June 2008 at 22:19

    Questioning after charge is, indeed, already in the Bill. So you'll get that. But since the right to remain silent is not being abolished, allowing questioning after charge may not actually achieve that much. You can just stay silent for longer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. David Lindsay4 June 2008 at 23:50

    "the right to remain silent is not being abolished"

    It doesn't really exist any more, any way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5 June 2008 at 11:44

    Surely the issue here isn't whether you can question after charge, but whether you can charge without having gathered sufficient evidence to charge someone, by questioning or otherwise. The answer, incidentally, is no.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Lindsay5 June 2008 at 16:37

    Hear, Hear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous6 June 2008 at 13:33

    Hear, hear? But it's an argument for increasing the period you can hold someone without charge, and an argument against your post, in which you argue for post-charge questioning as an alternative to longer pre-charge detention...

    ReplyDelete
  6. David Lindsay6 June 2008 at 15:06

    It sin't any such thing. There has never been a case where the Police have had to release anyone due to insufficient time to question them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous6 June 2008 at 15:51

    So why do you need questioning after charge?

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Lindsay6 June 2008 at 15:56

    Because it would kill off all arguments for prolonged detention without charge.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6 June 2008 at 16:14

    But it clearly wouldn't because, as already discussed, it's already in the Bill.

    ReplyDelete
  10. David Lindsay6 June 2008 at 16:18

    That doesn't follow at all.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6 June 2008 at 17:01

    Yes, it demonstrably does. The measure you advocate is already in the Bill, and yet the arguments for extended detention without charge have not been killed off, because they're still going on. Aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  12. David Lindsay6 June 2008 at 17:08

    Not really, no. Nobody is still actually arguing for it at all. Brown has instead done what Major did over European Finance, and said that it's a confidence issue. That wasn't and this isn't, but there we are.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous6 June 2008 at 17:25

    You're right, of course. Everyone is waiting for him to stand up next week and say "this is a vote of confidence, the whip will be withdrawn from any rebels". If he thinks he might lose, then that's what he'll do, no doubt about it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous6 June 2008 at 17:28

    As things stand, he's saying it's not a vote of confidence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David Lindsay6 June 2008 at 17:30

    Then he must think that he has things sewn up with the DUP and a handful of Tories. That could change. And then, so would he.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous6 June 2008 at 17:37

    It's funny how, when someone posts a message which shows that you are quite wrong (I did that earlier), you decline to put it up. It's also funny how, when that happens, another anonymous comment turns up telling you you're right (that happened at 17.25, after I left my unpublished comment). It's enough to make me think you're posting anonymous comments yourself.

    In fact, I'm going to assume that's what you're doing. If you don't publish this comment, I will be absolutely certain I'm right. If I'm wrong, you'll publish this comment - after all, you'll then be able to add a convincing explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. David Lindsay6 June 2008 at 17:39

    Only that you are deranged.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)