<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Yale Law Library - Reference Blog : terrorism, u.k.</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/terrorism/u.k_2E00_/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: terrorism, u.k.</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007.1 SP1 (Build: 30415.43)</generator><item><title>Terrorism Talk</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/2008/05/21/terrorism-talk.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 18:08:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">3dba5dbf-cc88-412d-a5e1-dc96318a2d17:185</guid><dc:creator>John Nann</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><description>&lt;p&gt;The Law Library of Congress hosted a &lt;a class="" href="http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=4283"&gt;talk&lt;/a&gt; by Australian barrister James Renwick discussing the UK and Australian&amp;nbsp;legislative responses to terrorism since 9/11 and comparing their responses to the response of the United States. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/aggbug.aspx?PostID=185" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/u.k_2E00_/default.aspx">u.k.</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/terrorism/default.aspx">terrorism</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/law+library+of+congress/default.aspx">law library of congress</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/australia/default.aspx">australia</category></item><item><title>UK Counter-terrorism bill</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/2008/04/04/uk-counter-terrorism-bill.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:02:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">3dba5dbf-cc88-412d-a5e1-dc96318a2d17:128</guid><dc:creator>John Nann</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;Parliament is debating a new &lt;a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2007-08/counterterrorism.html"&gt;counter-terrorism bill&lt;/a&gt;, it had it&amp;#39;s second reading on the 1st.&amp;nbsp; The main elements of the bill are:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;a provision to allow the pre-charge detention of terrorist
suspects to be extended from 28 days to 42 days in certain
circumstances &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;changes to enable the post-charge questioning of terrorist suspects and the drawing of adverse inferences from silence &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;imposing
requirements on people convicted of terrorist offences to let
authorities know where they are living and any changes to their
circumstances &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;enhanced sentencing of offenders who commit offences with a terrorist connection &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;provision for inquests and inquiries to be heard without a jury.&amp;quot;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;By the way, Parliament has a wonderful bill site, no?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/aggbug.aspx?PostID=128" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Parliament/default.aspx">Parliament</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/u.k_2E00_/default.aspx">u.k.</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/terrorism/default.aspx">terrorism</category></item></channel></rss>