It's happening in the UK, too

Blair wants "unitary executive" powers to overrule court decisions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4770231.stm


and darkness falls...

In the UK there is no assumption of innocence. The Government doesn't have to prove you are guilty as much as you have to prove you are not.

Of course he does - he's pushed a load of very dubious civil liberties measures through a compliant Parliament, and european human rights legislation is the only real challenge to them.

The fact is though that the HRA only gives extra access, in that you can appeal on human rights grounds in this country rather than having to go to Strasbourg to do it. He can't get rid of the whole lot with any ease at all.

Yes there is! That's one of the reasons they've been trying for all sorts of executive powers which don't require actual trials to punish people.

I think the UK should limit Prime Ministers to two terms of office. It seems that the longer you let them stay in power the more power hungry they become. Thatcher was just the same.

They get madder and madder too - though at least Tony isn't at the stage where he's sleeping three hours a night and having baths with electric currents running through them.

He won't last until the next election anyway.

so at first i thought you said urinary executive powers and... well for a while there i had some strange thoughts about the british govt

"I think the UK should limit Prime Ministers to two terms of office."

And then approaching the end of their second term they can do what they like without fear of it damaging their future. In our system, the constant carrot of re-election stays dangling over their head, motivating them to at least make some effort towards being decent leaders.

The private sector has profit as its motivation. The public sector has public support (which leads to re-election) as its motivation.

Lose that motivation for public support (as your presidents in their second terms do), and what motivation is left for them? The big P word perhaps?

Musuko.

This silly feud between Brown and Blair would have been a non issue if Blair could only have done two terms though. The battle between them seems to have taken a lot of the energy they could have directed more constructively in actually running the country.

Blair knows his days are numbered now and seems to be obsessed with leaving some sort of legacy behind him, which is what all these reforms are about. Some of them do look like they'll improve things long term, but he is rushing them through before the support is really there because he wants to get credit for them rather than Brown.

Some of them, like the identity cards, have no merit at all of course, but that one looks a dead cert now. So soon as well as having more CCTV cameras aimed at us than any other population on Earth, we'll also have to carry an identity card. Why don't they just barcode us and implant an RFID chip why they are at it? All this to protect our freedom supposedly.

I remember when the IRA were very active in the UK and we seemed to manage without that stuff then, in fact ID card got voted down a few times, and we had a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks.

Hey! The Japanese have electric hot baths and they are very relaxing! Are you calling the lot of them mad? Why do you hate the Japanese?

-Kiamat Dusk

YES, THERE IS - it's part of English common law that WE TOOK.

Gods, doesn't anyone here read REAL HISTORY?

"Blair knows his days are numbered now and seems to be obsessed with leaving some sort of legacy behind him"

And you think that he would be LESS obsessed if he had a certain fixed date end of his leadership looming ahead of him?

"Gods, doesn't anyone here read REAL HISTORY?"

One in three US students think the press have too much freedom:

"The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing"

http://www.usatoday.com/educate/college/firstyear/articles/20050206.htm

And another survey discovered this:

"Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It’s not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can’t."

And it wasn't just an isolated few students; over 100.000 were surveyed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6888837/

So are you surprised when some Americans don't know the roots of their own constitution...or even what freedoms and protections it is meant to grant them?

Musuko.

You're thinking of the French sytem there Bub.

Actually, urinary executive powers means the government are really taking the pi**.

( sorry I couldn't help it )

And you would not belive how many people in Australia belive the police have to " Read them their rights " when being arrested.

P.s. they dont

People in the US think the samething too. The truth is that they only need to read them before they begin interrogation. I'm not sure, but I think that if you say something without being asked, it is admissable as long as you weren't being questioned and even if they haven't read you your rights yet. (anyone know for sure?)

In the UK, when you're arrested the police immdiately caution you with the following:

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence."

The right to remain silent originated in Britain, btw.

Musuko.

Now they inform you of your rights when arrested, but as those of us who are old enough to have watched "The Sweeney" or those that have seen "Life on Mars" know full well, they used to get away with just saying "YOU'RE NICKED!"