Hacker News Reader

Comment by maym86 | Hacker News Reader

This, from a explaination of the UK system in a comment below.

> Police can only hold you for up to 96 hours without charging you with a crime. Once you are charged with something and awaiting trial, you have to be tried within 56 days. If you are not tried within those 56 days you have to be released on unconditional bail. Police can set up bail before the trail, but it cannot involve money - frequently it involves staying at a particular address, reporting to the police station daily, not contacting certain people etc - it depends on the severity of the crime, you cannot be released on bail for acts of violence or armed robbery for example.

View on HN

Is this what you’re advocating?

Police get to optionally, at their discretion, set bail?

That seems ripe for abuse.

At this point in history, I would NEVER look to the UK as a model for anything state related. It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days.

> It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days.

Care to explain?

There seems to be an assault on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and the right to self defense (life).

Freedom of the press: The Tommy Robinson episode which is the first time I had heard of the broad government ability to ban news stories from being reported. You don’t have to agree with Robinson’s politics, you just need to realize the precedent it sets.

Freedom of speech: Chelsea Russell - https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh...

Mark Meechan - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotlan...

I’m not defending these people, but think about the chilling effect this has on speech.

Right to self defense: U.K. took away the right to legally own hand guns in 1996. Since then knife violence has been on the rise. London is now considering “common sense knife control”. There is no longer any legal weapon you can carry that will give you a force multiplier over an attacker. This is especially dangerous for women.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...

Nonsense. Have you actually lived in the UK?

No. Is all you have an appeal to authority argument?

What about what I said is nonsense?

Are you saying that you have freedom of speech while a 19yr old posting lyrics from a rap song on her private Instagram page is censured and fined for doing so?

Are you saying your government can’t censor media outlets from certain topics?

Are you saying you have the right to defend yourself with some sort of force multiplier?

If you’re willing to explain why I’m wrong factually or philosophical, I’m willing to listen.

Tommy Robinson was arrested for breaching his parole. This parole caused by his prior arrest in 2017 for contempt of court outside Canterbury Crown Court. So the reason he got this seemingly harsh sentence, was because it was a reoffence, contrary to the terms of his suspended sentence.

The judges correctly found a real risk of prejudicing the jury and like it or not, the UK judiciary take potential infringements on the fairness of a trial very seriously.

A right to a fair trial for others is at least as important as his free speech.

With the gun point I disagree strongly. London has a rate of 1.45 homicides per 100,000 people. Potentially 180 murders this year. This is fewer than most large cities in the US. Most people in the UK don't carry weapons and the rates of murder are significantly lower than in the US. Access to guns increases the ease of homicide. New York has decreased it's rate (although it's still above London's rate) by limiting access to guns.

You didn’t argue that the press is free, that speech is free, that the right to defend yourself exists.

You argued that the restrictions on press are justified, said nothing about free speech, and that you hopefully don’t need to defend yourself.

So it sounds like we agree on the basic premise I set forth, but disagree on the importance of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com