Gringo

That's my concern. Emergency legislation to patch the existing law could have been enacted the next day - replacing the 'new evidence' requirement with a judicial view that charges were likely - not perfect, but you could have got that through both houses with a promise of reviewed legislation to follow in the next sitting. It would have taken 15 minutes to draft and be in place already.

But they're allowing the story to run with the sun et al reporting scare stories of rapists and nonces being set free because of stupid judges. So now public opinion is all facing in one direction, ie the requirement for the police to hold people as they see fit.

(every month we have a manager and Gringo remembers that is ;-) )

It seemed to appear that they weren't even sure when emergency legislation was going to be presented.

I suppose ACPO and their legal advice haven't quite decided upon what they want in it, yet.

Edit: Aren't there were quite a few legal experts in the Home Office (and one or two in the government)? Why, when the Home Office were told of the oral judgement, did they not look at getting advice themselves. If only the government had someone whom they could turn to for legal advice, some kind of senior legal advisor. An attorney general, perhaps.

For a couple of days this 'abberation' was presented as an abberation of judicial process, interpreting the letter not the spirit of the law.

It was refreshing to hear a different opinion on R4 that the judge was right and the police need to stop this abuse of the practice.

This was followed up with a letter to the yoghurt knitters by a group of solicitors (though I suspect the one from 'fitwatch' might be rantin rob in disguise)

yoghurtknittersdaily"]As support groups working with and solicitors representing people arrested at protests, including the recent student and anti-cuts protests, we have first-hand experience of the abuse of police bail (Report, 1 July). It is uncommon for people arrested at protests to be charged at the time. Instead the police routinely place people on police bail, often without even interviewing them. Then they remain on bail for many months and the police impose stringent bail conditions, the most common of which is a prohibition on attending further protests. Ultimately, many will never be charged.

It is clear to us that the police view the use of bail as part of a wider public order strategy aimed at disrupting protest movements. We therefore welcome the high court ruling ending this practice.

When the law was introduced 96 hours meant 96 hours, not 96 hours spread over 6 months.

Are the govt acting so slowly as the wording of whatever legislation they produce would be too obvious in terms of reach - it has to be explicit for the judges not to overrule it.

A friend of mine left his company to start up a rival venture. His previous employers weren't happy. They offered him more money, then tried to get him put on three months gardening leave, and when that failed they reported him for fraud of approx £20k (his outlet was turning over approx £2m per annum up from £600k when he joined 6 years ago).

He's been on police bail for 15 months, with nothing but (extremely) circumstancial evidence against him and it's massively affected his nature and confidence. There has been no new evidence for 15 months, but every three months he has to attend the station to get bailed again.

This law is being abused, how will it be replaced?

No he doesn't it's a silly come back to a silly post. Steaknchips seems destined for the sirgarycahill / smalljob reputation of spouting nonsense. Most don't bite, but when they do it's with silly wish destinations like the chumps league qualification or silly comparisons with sacking ferguson after five years without winning the title

Your not seriously comparing a manager that was the best thing to ever happen to Aberdean FC? A manager that could beat Celtic/Rangers etc and make Aberdean the best club in Scotland...To a man that took Rangers into 3rd place behind Hearts in recent times? Then took Biringham down twice in 3 years..Not to mention his Scotland side that lost 2-0 to Georgia..

No he doesn't it's a silly come back to a silly post. Steaknchips seems destined for the sirgarycahill / smalljob reputation of spouting nonsense. Most don't bite, but when they do it's with silly wish destinations like the chumps league qualification or silly comparisons with sacking ferguson after five years without winning the title

If you want a tax to succeed you don't call it the 'robin hood tax'

It shouldn't but I don't see other people shouting the same opinion a couple of times a day. I don't know if other people read a few pages back but I heard you the first couple of times.

The first in a new series of Monthly Polls on the Manager. Poll open until end of July.

Results since last poll: Well none really. So what are we voting on? Just a bit of a baseline I guess, more than a real assessment - seeing as the (pre-)season really starts now.

Johann Hahahahahari

Well they've only had five weeks (since the original ruling) to prepare for this so give them time.

I did expect emergency legislation to be presented today, but I guess when you have window dressing for ministerial appointments then tiger skin shoes will only get you so far.

At the moment, people are trying to repay debt, and their lack of confidence about the future also inhibits spending. The policy being followed by the government means more people losing their jobs, others facing pay cuts, and the rest cutting back their spending because they are worried about their own prospects.

Law And Order to grind to a halt?

Criminals could walk free if they are not charged within 96 hours

Tens of thousands of murderers, rapists and violent criminals could escape prosecution following a "bizarre" legal ruling.

The ruling, made by a district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court and backed by the High Court, means an end to the practice of releasing people on bail and calling them back for further questioning later - a common practice in most major inquiries.

Police forces can no longer put anyone out on bail for more than 96 hours without either being in a position to charge or release them.

After the four days is up, officers can no longer question suspects and can only rearrest them if they have new evidence, the ruling says.

Police chiefs have been left baffled by the "bizarre" ruling and both the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are currently considering the ramifications for forces across England and Wales.

................

Sir Norman Bettison, chief constable of West Yorkshire Police, said: "This means unless this is overturned police can no longer put anyone out on bail for more than 96 hours without either being in a position to charge or release.

"It's on the verge of a disaster now because the question being asked by my custody sergeants is, 'What do we do, boss?'

"I cannot countenance turning people away from the charge office and telling them all bets are off and they are free to go."

He went on: "We are running round like headless chickens this morning wondering what this means to the nature of justice.

"My holding position with my officers is that I can't believe this is what was envisioned.

"We are awaiting advice from the CPS.

................

The district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court ruled that the detention clock continues to run while the suspect is on bail from the police station.

Paul Hookway, a murder suspect, was first arrested at 12.40pm on November 7 last year.

A superintendent granted permission for him to be detained for up to 36 hours for questioning, but he was released on bail after about 28 hours.

Five months later, on April 5, police applied to the courts to extend the period of detention from 36 hours to the maximum allowed of 96 hours.

But the district judge refused the application, saying that the 96 hours had expired months ago.

Greater Manchester Police applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the case, but Mr Justice McCombe upheld the district judge's decision on May 19 and refused leave to appeal.

The force is now seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Unless they are your windows eh?

Seeing as I don't currently run a network of branches belonging to a bank that has robbed the nation, then it is unlikely to be my windows. If I had upset people to the extent that 100s of thousands of people were marching against me, the windows would probably be the least of my worries. That wouldn't of course stop me from informing my press officers to brief the murdoch et al media about the damage it caused so the obedient droids could lap it up.

Anyway, I can't see the Police standing back and allowing that so they would have to step in, and thus it escalates.

Going back to the G20 protests - that's exactly what they did - peaceful march, loads of press, loads of polce around. A group of balaclava wearing provocateurs run up and smash a few windows. The press all managed to get within two feet whilst nearly all the polce remained watching. The exception of course being the police cameraman already inside the building filming the smashing from the other side. State compliance?

On the back of this the police responded immediately by waiting for seven hours and then rounding up a group of completely different people in a different area and subjecting them to illegal kettling. The result of which actions of course ended in the death of an innocent bystander (which of course was blamed on the protestors).

But that's just a nice diversion from the fact that the greek crisis was caused by (in order of blame) the bankers, the greek govt and the eu govt, and that some think that this should be paid for by (in order of share of costs) the eu taxpayers and the greek taxpayers.

Of course it would be preferable if no one got hurt. And that goes for the state with their provacateurs, unmarked police officers and illegal kettling tactics as well. The state seeks to provoke violence to give themselves an excusse to crack down.

Whereas a few broken windows I'm hardly fussed about - you have to make some noise to be heard.

No - it tarnishes the cause in the eyes of the obedient drones who slavishly follow the lead of the media and politicians. The media and the politicians tend to know what the real story is.

Now they're trying to gether popular support. The politicians and the media do have their own agendas and it requires popular support to force them to listen to the peole.

Genuine protestors are angry but peaceful.

That is nonsense if you are suggesting that, as soon as someone may get caught up in something violent (as you have latterly openly admitted may happen), they cease to be a genuine protestor.

No, but I do think if you start commiting acts of violence it will hurt your cause and the cause of the other protestors along side you.

No. It will only hurt the cause in the eyes of the obedient droids.

So what kinds of violence are you suggesting are acceptable then?

Anyone taking a serious view of the issues will look past that.

Genuine protestors are angry but peaceful.

That is nonsense if you are suggesting that, as soon as someone may get caught up in something violent (as you have latterly openly admitted may happen), they cease to be a genuine protestor.

No, but I do think if you start commiting acts of violence it will hurt your cause and the cause of the other protestors along side you.

Well upon til a page ago the subject was the euro and the greek debt crisis, but you started having a go at protestors.

I disagree. I think anger 'boiling over' does come across as excusing violent actions.

Some people will have gone there just for a fight, some will have started out angry and then gotten violent and the vast majority of people will have been angry but peaceful.

I disagree with the first two groups and support the third.

This is what 32 years of thatcherism does to a country

He pointed out that the UK's savings culture has all but disappeared, with the Office for National Statistics stating that Britons are saving less money each month than at any time since 1959 and disposable income is at its lowest in the UK since 1921.

I don't consider people who use legitimate protests as cover to commit acts of violence and destruction as actual protesters.

The level of violence is a step too far though. Those bank staff who were killed did not deserve to be burnt alive, they were just tellers working in a local branch.

Some of the 'protesters' are out of control.

Democracy is Democracy.

If you hedge it with the right CDSs you should be able to guarantee a proft either way - and if the ecb 'force' a rollover of debt you could end up winning on both bets.

So it's a trading pact. Like it used to be?