5 ms·
Rights that don't fully exist in the UK anymore: * Free speech (see prohibitions on "hate speech" and "extremism") * The right to remain silent (your silence
by marcoperaza 9y ago
Rights that don't fully exist in the UK anymore:
* Free speech (see prohibitions on "hate speech" and "extremism")
* The right to remain silent (your silence can be used as evidence of guilt in court)
* The right to a jury trial (the UK now allows majority, 10-2, verdicts. The right to a jury trial can also be removed in cases where the government suspects jury tampering.)
* Habeas Corpus (up to 14 days detention without charge of terrorism suspects. it was 28 days until 2011)
* The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure (in many situations the standard of evidence has been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" and is increasingly at the discretion of police/government instead of courts)
* The prohibition on double jeopardy (the government can petition for a new trial after acquittal if substantial new evidence comes to light)
* The exclusion of illegally gathered evidence from court (the UK never had an exclusionary principle)
* The right to self-defense (there is no castle doctrine in the UK. In every US state except Vermont, you can use lethal force with impunity against an intruder to your home. See the UK case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for shooting robbers who were in his home)
* The right to assemble
* The right to keep arms (I realize this crowd may not be a fan of this right, but nevertheless it used to be a right Englishmen and Americans both enjoyed)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- k-mcgrady 9y agoWell that's a load of nonsense. How about backing some of it up? We do have a right to a jury trial. Self-defense is an important defence in several laws. There are assemblies/protests in central London every weekend pretty much. Regarding the 'right to remain silent' when arrested in the UK you do not have to say anything. As for the right to keep arms - we don't want it. If our police force believes they can do their job without all carrying firearms (and last night where they tracked down and killed the attackers within 8 mins of the first call to them proves they are right) the general public doesn't need them either.
- marcoperaza 9y agoFor self defense, see the case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for shooting intruders in his home. Castle doctrine would have protected his actions in all US states except Vermont. The right to remain silent in the US (and previously in the UK) means that your silence cannot be presented as evidence of guilt in court. In the UK, such evidence may be presented and the the jury is instructed that they may make negative inferences from your refusal to speak with the police. The right to a jury trial has been limited by changes that allow juries to reach majority (10-2) verdicts and by removing the right to a jury trial in cases where the government suspects jury tampering. I'm not trying to get into a debate about guns. But any list of rights no longer enjoyed by Englishmen wouldn't be complete without mentioning it. Whether it's for the better or worse is another issue.
- basisword 9y agoRe: Tony Martin He used an illegally held weapon to 'defend his property'. He lay in wait for the burglars and shot at them in the dark and again shot at them (killing one) as they attempted to flee. How in any world is that self-defence? As they were fleeing he was under no threat and therefore such deadly force is completely unreasonable and no longer being used in defence of anything anyway. Unless you want to live in a world where people are shot dead for accidentally wandering on to another persons land the concept of necessary and reasonable force is a fair one.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- marcoperaza 9y agoI agree that the right to self-defense is something that must be limited by tests of necessity and reasonableness, in general. But within your home, I think castle doctrine should be the guiding principle. Castle doctrine doesn't apply to people wandering across your land, it applies to people illegally inside your home.
- krona 9y agoI think most reasonable people would think a 10-2 verdict is more acceptable in some circumstances than a retrial. Meanwhile, the jury selection process in the US is, in my eyes, a complete distortion of the whole concept.
- razakel 9y ago>See the UK case of Tony Martin, who was convicted of murder for shooting robbers who were in his home Shooting someone in the back whilst they're running away doesn't constitute self-defence.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ue_ 9y ago>* Free speech (see prohibitions on "hate speech" and "extremism") Don't forget "drawings we find digusting", too.