5 ms·

Indeed, but the UK is in many ways words. At the least in the USA, often the constitution is upheld (give or take); in the UK you often don't even have such fun

Indeed, but the UK is in many ways words. At the least in the USA, often the constitution is upheld (give or take); in the UK you often don't even have such fundamental rights. The UK at present fits more to Russia than, e. g. European countries.

gizajob 4mo ago
You’re tripping m8.
josephg 4mo ago
> At the least in the USA, often the constitution is upheld Some of ICE’s detainees may have different opinions on that point. The UK may endow her citizens with fewer rights. But I have a lot more trust in British due process. British civil servants seem much less … capricious than Americans. I was almost denied entry to Hawaii once because I told the CBP agent I didn’t have any cash on me. (My money is in a bank account, obviously). He went on a big rant about how expensive Hawaii is. I think he was worried I’d end up homeless. (Even though my visit to hang out with my then employer.) Over the years I’ve heard so many stories from other Australian friends about wild and unfortunate encounters with US police and officials. By comparison, the British government seems far more civilised. If something happened while visiting the UK, I have much more confidence that everything would be resolved in a fair and reasonable manner.
- somewhatgoated 4mo ago
  I had the same experience visiting the US - this was 15 years ago so I imagine it’s much worse now. Got subjected to hour long questioning because I only had a little cash on me and told them truthfully that I would travel the country so I didn’t have one place to stay for the entirety of the trip (because I was TRAVELLING). I since learned that my first mistake was to tell them the truth but alas. After asking me about every single detail of my life they eventually let me in. It’s a pity, such a great country being ruined by kleptocrats.
- mikrotikker 4mo ago
  I mean, the argument is that ICE detainees are not citizens and thus don't get the protection, similar to foreigners engaging with CBP at the border
  - me-vs-cat 4mo ago
    Have you looked at which sections of the constitution say "citizen" and which say "person"?
    - mikrotikker 4mo ago
      I didn't say I agreed with the argument, but it does seem to be interpretable like the Bible.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- cmxch 4mo ago
  > By comparison, the British government seems far more civilised Henry Nowak would disagree.
JdeBP 4mo ago
Not having a written constitution is not the same as not having rights in everyday practice.
- BLKNSLVR 4mo ago
  It would seem that having a written constitution isn't the bulwark many thought it was.
  - inglor_cz 4mo ago
    If you read the Soviet constitution, it is remarkably liberal and progressive. Only it had no teeth and whatever Stalin or Brezhnev wanted, the KGB would do.
- gizajob 4mo ago
  This confuses so many people - the Uk has a series of constitutions and a very strong and historical legal basis for rights. It’s not strictly codified in one purposely written document but it does exist. And it’s a mistake to say if there’s no constitution then you have no fundamental rights. The UKs system is a hodgepodge but so is having a written constitution that can be regularly amended or otherwise ignored.
  - ElFitz 4mo ago
    I still remember learning about habeas corpus. And loved Terry Pratchett’s take on it.
  - diordiderot 4mo ago
    Like trial by jury... Oh wait. Going this year Or freedom of protest... Er ehm, that was three years ago Well at least no Double jeopardy... until 2003 Right to silence! Oh no not that one either Shrugs and scratches head
    - gizajob 4mo ago
      I’m not really defending the system, just making the point about a form of constitution existing. Even if the things you mention were nailed down in a constitution, that constitution could be amended to undo them, same as every other form of law.
ben_w 4mo ago
UK has (for now) the Human Rights Act and is a (for now) subject to the jurisdiction of (by being a founding member of) the European Court of Human Rights. Which is not to excuse the errors, but to put it in context: it is a European country… albeit just like Turkey and Azerbaijan.
- trumpdong 4mo ago
  In the UK I'd be worried about being arbitrarily arrested, deported, and banned from re-entry. In the US I'd be worried about being murdered. By police. In cold blood.
  - flumpcakes 4mo ago
    > In the UK I'd be worried about being arbitrarily arrested, deported, and banned from re-entry. That's not going to happen unless you commit a serious crime, in which case it's not arbitrary. I can't think of a single case that's made the news. Meanwhile across the pond in America you have the nightly news reporting on children and people in cages screaming. People being rounded up for not being white. Little to no due process at all until you've been through 6 rounds of hell.
    - trumpdong 4mo ago
      By "commit a serious crime" I assume you mean "publicly state that I support Palestine Action" or maybe "hold a blank sign at a protest". Those are serious crimes in the UK now. But as I said, the worst they're going to do is kick me out, not kill me, and that makes the difference.
      - foldr 4mo ago
        Small factual correction: the barrister holding the blank sign was not in fact arrested.
      - flumpcakes 4mo ago
        > I assume you mean "publicly state that I support Palestine Action" They are currently a proscribed group, so yes, that is included in the list of things you probably shouldn't do. You're not going to get killed for it though. You're probably not even going to get arrested in most cases. Whether or not they should be proscribed is a different issue. The best course of action is probably to wait for the courts to decide. Pressure groups damaging military assets probably aren't going to be well received by the public regardless of which cause they're for.

gizajob 4mo ago

You’re tripping m8.

josephg 4mo ago

> At the least in the USA, often the constitution is upheld Some of ICE’s detainees may have different opinions on that point. The UK may endow her citizens with fewer rights. But I have a lot more trust in British due process. British civil servants seem much less … capricious than Americans. I was almost denied entry to Hawaii once because I told the CBP agent I didn’t have any cash on me. (My money is in a bank account, obviously). He went on a big rant about how expensive Hawaii is. I think he was worried I’d end up homeless. (Even though my visit to hang out with my then employer.) Over the years I’ve heard so many stories from other Australian friends about wild and unfortunate encounters with US police and officials. By comparison, the British government seems far more civilised. If something happened while visiting the UK, I have much more confidence that everything would be resolved in a fair and reasonable manner.

somewhatgoated 4mo ago
I had the same experience visiting the US - this was 15 years ago so I imagine it’s much worse now. Got subjected to hour long questioning because I only had a little cash on me and told them truthfully that I would travel the country so I didn’t have one place to stay for the entirety of the trip (because I was TRAVELLING). I since learned that my first mistake was to tell them the truth but alas. After asking me about every single detail of my life they eventually let me in. It’s a pity, such a great country being ruined by kleptocrats.
mikrotikker 4mo ago
I mean, the argument is that ICE detainees are not citizens and thus don't get the protection, similar to foreigners engaging with CBP at the border
- me-vs-cat 4mo ago
  Have you looked at which sections of the constitution say "citizen" and which say "person"?
  - mikrotikker 4mo ago
    I didn't say I agreed with the argument, but it does seem to be interpretable like the Bible.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
cmxch 4mo ago
> By comparison, the British government seems far more civilised Henry Nowak would disagree.

JdeBP 4mo ago

Not having a written constitution is not the same as not having rights in everyday practice.

BLKNSLVR 4mo ago
It would seem that having a written constitution isn't the bulwark many thought it was.
- inglor_cz 4mo ago
  If you read the Soviet constitution, it is remarkably liberal and progressive. Only it had no teeth and whatever Stalin or Brezhnev wanted, the KGB would do.
gizajob 4mo ago
This confuses so many people - the Uk has a series of constitutions and a very strong and historical legal basis for rights. It’s not strictly codified in one purposely written document but it does exist. And it’s a mistake to say if there’s no constitution then you have no fundamental rights. The UKs system is a hodgepodge but so is having a written constitution that can be regularly amended or otherwise ignored.
- ElFitz 4mo ago
  I still remember learning about habeas corpus. And loved Terry Pratchett’s take on it.
- diordiderot 4mo ago
  Like trial by jury... Oh wait. Going this year Or freedom of protest... Er ehm, that was three years ago Well at least no Double jeopardy... until 2003 Right to silence! Oh no not that one either Shrugs and scratches head
  - gizajob 4mo ago
    I’m not really defending the system, just making the point about a form of constitution existing. Even if the things you mention were nailed down in a constitution, that constitution could be amended to undo them, same as every other form of law.

ben_w 4mo ago

UK has (for now) the Human Rights Act and is a (for now) subject to the jurisdiction of (by being a founding member of) the European Court of Human Rights. Which is not to excuse the errors, but to put it in context: it is a European country… albeit just like Turkey and Azerbaijan.

trumpdong 4mo ago
In the UK I'd be worried about being arbitrarily arrested, deported, and banned from re-entry. In the US I'd be worried about being murdered. By police. In cold blood.
- flumpcakes 4mo ago
  > In the UK I'd be worried about being arbitrarily arrested, deported, and banned from re-entry. That's not going to happen unless you commit a serious crime, in which case it's not arbitrary. I can't think of a single case that's made the news. Meanwhile across the pond in America you have the nightly news reporting on children and people in cages screaming. People being rounded up for not being white. Little to no due process at all until you've been through 6 rounds of hell.
  - trumpdong 4mo ago
    By "commit a serious crime" I assume you mean "publicly state that I support Palestine Action" or maybe "hold a blank sign at a protest". Those are serious crimes in the UK now. But as I said, the worst they're going to do is kick me out, not kill me, and that makes the difference.
    - foldr 4mo ago
      Small factual correction: the barrister holding the blank sign was not in fact arrested.
    - flumpcakes 4mo ago
      > I assume you mean "publicly state that I support Palestine Action" They are currently a proscribed group, so yes, that is included in the list of things you probably shouldn't do. You're not going to get killed for it though. You're probably not even going to get arrested in most cases. Whether or not they should be proscribed is a different issue. The best course of action is probably to wait for the courts to decide. Pressure groups damaging military assets probably aren't going to be well received by the public regardless of which cause they're for.